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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the provenance of the items (created via make_quiz_template) and that the resulting id feeds create_quiz_from_template exactly like a catalog id. It stops short of describing pagination or return format, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then the sibling boundary, then the id handoff. No filler; every clause carries routing information.

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 an account-scoped template listing whose safety is covered by annotations, parameter contract by a 100%-covered schema, and pagination by limit/offset, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The sibling disambiguation and id handoff round it out.

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%: workspace_id, limit (1-100, default 20) and offset are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail for these parameters, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('shows the account's own templates') and immediately draws the boundary against the sibling search_quiz_templates, which covers the service-wide catalog. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when this tool applies (own templates made via make_quiz_template) versus when it does not (general catalog — use search_quiz_templates), and names the downstream consumer create_quiz_from_template. Both the selection and the follow-up step are spelled out.

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