canvas_quiz_submission_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context that annotations cannot: the result is filtered by Canvas-side view permissions, and the call will not begin or unlock an attempt. It says nothing about what an empty/redacted response looks like, which would have closed the gap fully.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the prerequisite and the negative constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating that questions and answers are returned, and pagination/mode handling is documented in the schema. The one remaining uncertainty — that Canvas may withhold answers depending on quiz settings — is hinted at but not spelled out for the caller.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter carries its own description (raw = unmodified JSON, page = number or next_page bookmark, quiz_submission_id with a minimum). The description only restates where the id comes from, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

A specific verb and resource: 'Read questions and answers ... for an existing quiz submission', narrowed to what Canvas 'permits you to view'. It implicitly separates itself from canvas_quiz_submission (source of the id) and from any quiz-starting tool, though it never names an alternative sibling outright.

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 gives the prerequisite ('Requires a submission id obtained from quiz_submission') and a clear when-not ('does not unlock or start a quiz'). It stops short of naming what to call instead when the quiz has not been started, so an agent must infer that.

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