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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful note that hidden options are included and the intended use as a read-before-write step, but does not disclose return format or pagination, so it adds moderate value on top of structured data.

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?

One sentence plus one usage sentence, front-loaded with the action and its return contents. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and workflow placement. It could briefly note that no output schema exists or what the return shape looks like, but it is largely complete.

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 a single required quiz_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns the quiz structure and enumerates the three components (ids/order, entities/widget configs, hidden options). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_quiz_widgets_hidden or get_quiz_hidden_options, though it doesn't explicitly name them as 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?

It explicitly states when to use it: before update_quiz_widgets and update_quiz_logic. That is a precise, actionable workflow instruction that tells the agent both the context and the downstream consumers.

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