get_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavior: frequency-weighted estimation, coverage calculation, weak-point identification, and daily progress tracking. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what data it depends on, or how the output is presented.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the key outputs. It avoids fluff, though the dense list of metrics could be slightly clearer with structural separation.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lists output concepts but not their format, and it fails to define 'daily' and 'q_type' or explain how the readiness score should be interpreted beyond the target reference. An agent would need to guess important details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'target' parameter as the passing reference line. The 'daily' and 'q_type' parameters remain unexplained, leaving their meaning and acceptable values ambiguous.

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's purpose: estimating exam readiness via weighted scores, coverage, weak points, and daily progress. It is specific about the resource and outputs, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_progress or get_weak_topics.

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 a general 'check your readiness' use case but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_progress, get_weak_topics, or get_study_plan. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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