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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a critical behavioral constraint about not revealing answers and references the grading tool, which provides valuable context beyond the structured hints.

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 only two sentences, with the first stating the action and the second delivering an important workflow instruction. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The combination of schema, annotations, and description covers the purpose, safety profile, and key workflow link to submit_quiz_answers. It could explicitly detail the return format or question count behavior, but given the simple nature and absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides descriptions for 5 of 6 parameters, so the baseline is set. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, relying on the schema, which adequately documents the parameters.

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 the tool starts an MCQ quiz from a validated question bank, with a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pyq_sample (which merely fetches sample questions) and submit_quiz_answers (which grades responses).

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: never reveal answers before attempts and grade via submit_quiz_answers. This gives clear context on when to use this tool relative to the grading tool, though it doesn't explicitly discuss all alternative tools.

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