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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a meaningful caveat: 'UNVERIFIED against a real quiz', which warns about reliability, but it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond this single note.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the caveat follows efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter), has annotations covering safety, and an output schema that explains return values. The description covers scope and a reliability caveat, making it nearly complete for an agent to call correctly, though explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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% and the single attempt_id parameter is documented with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'summary of all questions in an attempt', with qualifying detail '(answered/unanswered), across all pages'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_quiz_attempt_data or get_quiz_attempt_review.

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 phrase 'across all pages' implies this tool gives an aggregated overview rather than per-page details, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_quiz_attempt_data. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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