List IELTS question bank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, bounded read operation. The description adds that it lists 'imported' content (establishing the data source). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's marginal value is modest but present, landing at a 3 rather than higher.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the filtering options. Zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a read-only listing tool. Every element 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?

The tool has an output schema (which explains return values, reducing the description's burden) and good annotations for safety. The description covers the primary function and filter options. However, with 0% schema coverage for the three params, it would benefit from a bit more prose on search semantics and limit behavior to be fully complete.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for documenting parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'Part or search text' which maps to the part and search parameters, and implies limit exists. However, it doesn't clarify the exact 'Part' enum values beyond what the schema shows, nor whether search applies to topic names, exact question text, or both. The limit param's semantics and default are undocumented in prose.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List imported IELTS speaking topics or exact questions') with optional filters. It distinguishes the read-only listing purpose from sibling tools like import_question_bank (ingestion) and get_training_context (retrieval of a specific session context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-only list tools like get_dashboard_data or list_practice_history, though the domain (question bank vs practice history) is implied.

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 description implies usage context ('imported topics', 'optionally filtered by Part or search') which suggests this operates on an already-imported bank, and the sibling name import_question_bank implies the prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_dashboard_data or get_training_context, nor does it state when not to use it.

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