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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only safety profile, so the description does not need to restate it. It adds behavioral context by noting that settings and metadata are included, but it does not describe the exact return structure or error handling, which leaves some gaps.

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 11-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant or tangential 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 a simple get-by-id tool with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description provides adequate context. It specifies the scope and what is included, though the lack of an output schema means return format is only lightly characterized.

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?

The input schema fully documents quizId, including its YouTube-style base64url format. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond what the parameter name and description already convey, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a single quiz... by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like quiz_video_list_quizzes or quiz_video_create_quiz. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a quiz ID and need a single quiz's settings and metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the emphasis on 'single' and 'by id' implies the contrast with listing or creating tools.

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