List TOEFL Writing practice prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond that: it runs no model, spends nothing against the daily scoring allowance, and counts against the per-minute request window. This gives the agent information about side effects and rate-limit behavior not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 moderately sized and information-dense. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost and rate-limit details, and then a legal disclaimer. The legal section is less functional but not excessive; the structure is logical and every sentence carries relevant information except the trademark boilerplate.

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?

Given three well-documented parameters, no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description provides all needed context: what is returned (prompts with ids), which task types, cost implications, and rate-limit behavior. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so all three parameters are documented with meaning in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, only reiterates the task_type omission behavior which is already in the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Writing practice prompts from the Reach120 bank'), and enumerates the two task types covered. It also hints at the primary use case by mentioning the id that is passed to score_writing_response, which distinguishes it from siblings. Purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from get_practice_prompt and score_writing_response.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use: it returns prompts with the id needed for scoring, and it explains cost implications (no scoring allowance usage, but counts against request window). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives by name, though the sibling list exists. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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