Get New Quiz Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Get a single item... by item ID' — no error conditions, prerequisites, or relationship to quiz structure. The read-only action is consistent with the annotations; no contradiction.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that's front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently packed with disambiguation: '(question)' clarifies the domain term, '(LTI)' adds platform context, and 'by item ID' specifies the lookup key. No wasted words.

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 ID-based getter with full schema coverage, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the resource type, the item scope, the platform context, and the retrieval key. Slightly more (e.g., relationship to the quiz structure) would push it higher, but it's well-suited to its purpose.

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% — every parameter (item_id, course_id, assignment_id) already has a type and semantic description. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb (Get) with a clear resource (a single New Quiz item/question) and scoping ('by item ID'). The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with sibling `list_new_quiz_items`, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: fetch a single record by ID using the three identifying parameters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. alternatives guidance, no exclusionary notes, and no mention of when one might prefer `list_new_quiz_items` instead.

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