Item analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by enumerating the computed metrics (difficulty, p-value, average mark, full vs zero credit), which is meaningful because no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence where the core purpose and output details are front-loaded. There is no redundant content or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only analytics tool, the description sufficiently covers inputs and expected outputs. It could optionally mention ordering or exact response format, but the listed metrics give an agent enough information to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter assessment_id is already documented as 'The exam paper (assessment) id.' The description only reinforces this with 'one exam,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'per-question item analysis for one exam' and specifies the outputs (difficulty, p-value, average mark, full/zero credit counts). It lacks an explicit verb, but 'Per-question item analysis' plus resource scoping makes the purpose clear and distinguishable from gradebook or listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for one exam' provides clear context that this tool is for single-assessment, per-question statistics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended scope versus siblings like gradebook or list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.