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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool reports visibility for marks, feedback, and right answers, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted text. It immediately identifies the action and the information being checked.

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 has rich schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering its read-only nature. The description is sufficient for calling it correctly, though it could better situate the tool relative to related quiz review and access siblings.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the attempt scope with 'for a quiz's attempts,' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: checking which review details an account may see for a quiz's attempts. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this permission-check tool from nearby siblings such as get_quiz_attempt_review or get_quiz_access_information.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'allowed to see' hints at permission gating, but the agent must infer that this should be used before requesting actual review details.

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