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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the result includes correct answers, an editor link for adjusting questions and uploading photos, and a confidentiality constraint. It does not mention link expiry or revocation, which would be useful for a link-returning tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the read-only status, followed by the returned links and sharing restriction. 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotation, but the rest of each sentence carries useful information with no significant waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains that it returns two links, what the preview link contains, and who may receive them. Minor omissions such as link lifetime or revocation are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has full description coverage for the single quiz_id parameter, including its format and provenance. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the concrete outputs: a private preview link showing every question with correct answers and an editor link. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic quiz retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 gives a clear security-related usage rule ('Share these links only with the maker') but does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_quiz or get_game_links. Usage is implied as review/editing before publishing, but alternatives are not addressed.

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