Get answer framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned content (framework, model answer, follow-up, common mistake, 1-5 rubric), which is important since there is no output schema. It doesn't say what happens for an unknown id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the enumerated return contents. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. The only gap is behavior on an invalid or missing id, minor for a read-only single-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the same example ids (aie-026, ib-071). The description's 'one question id' reinforces the single-id constraint but adds no format, validity, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (return a step-by-step answer framework for one question id) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: framework, model answer, follow-up, common mistake, and rubric. This is clearly differentiated from siblings like get_questions, search_questions, and random_drill, which operate over sets of questions rather than a single id.

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 question id' implies the usage condition (call it once you already know the id), but no sibling is named and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that search_questions/get_questions are the way to obtain an id first.

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