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

Annotations cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds key constraints beyond annotations: never names, only aggregate numbers, minimum 5 players, and requires login. These are critical for correct use.

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?

Front-loads the outcome and includes only relevant details, but the main sentence is long and packs multiple clauses. Still efficient and free of filler.

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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: privacy, authentication, minimum sample size, and what results include. No output schema exists, yet return contents are summarized adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines quiz id/link and optional classLink. The description restates classLink scope ('for everyone or for one class link') and adds that the quiz must be one the user made, but adds little format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes retrieval of quiz results: number of players, average correct, per-question accuracy sorted hardest first, scoped to all players or one class link. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_quiz (quiz content) and find_quizzes (quiz discovery).

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?

States the scope (everyone or one class link) and prerequisites (user logged in, at least 5 players), but does not explicitly say when to choose it over get_quiz or find_quizzes, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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