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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable reliability caveat ('UNVERIFIED against a real quiz') and notes the tool operates on a finished attempt, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. With annotations carrying the main behavioral signals, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The reliability caveat in the second sentence is substantive and earns its place.

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, so return values needn't be explained. With 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete, but it could better situate the tool among its many quiz-attempt siblings to fully guide selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (attempt_id and page) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal semantics by implying attempt_id must reference a completed attempt. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('grade and per-question review for a finished quiz attempt'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_quiz_attempt_summary or get_quiz_attempt_data, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'finished quiz attempt' implies a precondition but stops short of actionable usage instructions.

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