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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the returned fields, defines the null meaning for completed_at (in progress), and states the tool never includes answers or answer keys. It also mentions the permission requirement. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss pagination, but those are reasonably implied for a list operation and partially covered by 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key fields, then add the exclusion and permission note. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple list operation with a well-covered schema, the description provides the essential purpose, return field semantics, exclusions, and permission requirement. It does not explicitly describe the response format or pagination mechanics, but the schema's limit/offset descriptions cover that, and the tool's simplicity keeps the gap minor.

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%, with each parameter already documented (limit default 20, offset default 0, quiz_id UUID, user_id filter). The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool lists attempts for one quiz, specifies the exact fields returned (learner, score, points, passed, started_at, completed_at), and explicitly notes it never includes answers or answer keys. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_quiz_questions or list_quizzes.

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 gives clear context that this is for listing attempts of a specific quiz and notes the required permission (read:courses). It implies when to use it (when you need attempt data) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Never includes answers' hint suggests a distinction but stops short of an explicit routing guide.

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