Random mock-interview drill

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value: results exclude answers, and passing the same seed replays an identical drill. It doesn't say whether questions can repeat within a drill or in what order they come back.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus the "no answers" constraint are front-loaded before the optional modifiers.

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 5-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what the agent needs to select and call it. The remaining gap is the shape of a returned question object, which isn't hinted at.

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 enums are documented inline, so the parameters are already fully specified. The description restates topic/level/seed filtering without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("pick n random questions") with an explicit scope qualifier: random sampling, no answers, for a timed mock round. Randomness cleanly separates it from search_questions/get_questions, and it names get_answer_framework as the complement.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario ("for a timed mock round"), notes optional filtering, and points to get_answer_framework for the answer side. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., targeted practice should use search_questions).

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