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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds examples of the feedback text but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or edge-case behavior beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with useful parenthetical examples and no filler. Every clause contributes to identifying the resource and the lookup.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description adequately explains what is fetched. It could note behavior when no feedback is configured, but that is minor given the output schema exists.

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 quiz_id and grade are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'at a given grade' reinforces the grade parameter but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('grade-boundary feedback text configured for a quiz'), and scope ('at a given grade'). It is distinguishable from sibling quiz getters such as get_quiz_best_grade or get_quiz_attempt_review, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when retrieving configured grade-boundary feedback for a specific quiz and grade, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternatives. The example feedback strings clarify intent but not tool selection.

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