edubase_get_quiz_grading_presets

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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, safe operation, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context about the return scope ('both global and owned, custom presets'), which clarifies what exactly will be listed. No mention of pagination or limits, but for a simple list operation with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the exact scope of results. Every word contributes information; no wasted text.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, required as none, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description covers the essential usage and return scope. It could be slightly more explicit about the difference with the singular preset endpoint, but the inferred list behavior plus schema makes it reasonably complete for correct invocation.

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 only parameter (language) is 100% covered by the schema description, which already explains the filter behavior and that presets not bound to a language are included. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('List'), resource ('grading presets'), and scope ('available for the user'). It explicitly mentions both global and owned custom presets, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'edubase_get_quiz_grading_preset' — the plural vs singular distinction is clear even without an explicit reference.

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 description implies its use case (listing grading presets for a user) but does not explicitly say when to use it versus the singular getter or any other sibling tool. No exclusions or alternative routing advice is provided, but the core context is inferable from the plural naming and available-for-user phrasing.

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