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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: right answers are returned only to the quiz creator, and the tool reports whether a quiz being made is ready. Error handling and response formatting details are not covered.

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 front-loaded and compact, using a single dense sentence plus a short clause. It is efficient, though the semicolon-separated field list is slightly run-on and could be broken up for readability.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough detail about what is returned, including conditional visibility of right answers and readiness status. Minor gaps like exact response shape or error behavior remain, but are not critical.

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 fully documents the single parameter, and the description adds a useful example of the link format (tjaz.com/q/…). This goes slightly beyond the schema, though the parameter meaning is already clear.

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 states it retrieves a quiz by id or link and enumerates the returned fields: title, audience, questions, links, conditional right answers, and readiness. It distinguishes itself from find_quizzes implicitly by requiring an id/link rather than searching, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a quiz id or link. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus find_quizzes or quiz_results, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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