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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, so the raised bar is met by the 'UNVERIFIED against a real quiz' caveat and the instruction to sanity-check output, which is genuine behavioral context an agent could not get from structure. It stops short of saying what a blocked result looks like or listing all block reasons, keeping it a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the example block reasons parenthetical. Zero waste, though the UNVERIFIED caveat is slightly buried mid-sentence.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. For a single-parameter read-only check, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and the reliability caveat 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage and an inline schema description ('Quiz id, e.g. from list_quizzes'), the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource (quiz access for this account), and it explains what the return value answers ('whether... can currently attempt a quiz, and why not if blocked'). It relates itself to start_quiz_attempt but doesn't differentiate from the many other read-only quiz siblings (get_quiz_attempts, get_quiz_best_grade).

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?

'call this before start_quiz_attempt' gives explicit pre-requisite sequencing, and 'sanity-check the result' sets expectations. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the ordering guidance is clear and actionable.

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