edubase_get_exam_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the permission requirement ('Needs reporting permission for the exam') and the empty-list precondition. Pagination or result-shape behavior is not mentioned, but an output schema exists to cover returns.

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 core purpose and the sibling relationship. The trailing clause about filters ('...they can be narrowed down with') is slightly convoluted but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: what it returns, which tool to chain into, the empty-state case, and the permission prerequisite. Only minor gaps (pagination, exact report fields) remain, and returns are covered by the output schema.

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% for the single 'exam' parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description confirms the parameter is an exam but adds no format or identification details (ID vs. slug) beyond what the schema says. 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the reports of an exam') plus the secondary payload ('custom user data filters'), and explicitly names the sibling that consumes the result, edubase_post_exam_report. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling and from edubase_get_quiz_report without opening either 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?

It clearly routes the agent: use this to discover downloadable reports, then call edubase_post_exam_report to download them. It also states the empty-result condition (no examinees or results). It does not spell out when NOT to use it, but the workflow pairing is clear enough for correct selection.

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