get_quiz_access_information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the tool is 'UNVERIFIED against a real quiz' and the agent should sanity-check the output, which is an honest reliability caveat. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the reliability caveat. Every clause carries information; the only minor inefficiency is the nested parenthetical example list, but it earns its place by naming the blocking reasons.

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?

Return values needn't be explained because an output schema exists, and the pre-call sequencing plus the caveat about unverified results cover what an agent needs to act correctly. The one gap is that it doesn't state what the 'unverified' caveat implies concretely (e.g. false negatives), though the instruction to sanity-check partially covers it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains quiz_id including its source ('e.g. from list_quizzes'). The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check whether this account can currently attempt a quiz') and enumerates the failure modes it reports (time window, password, previous attempts exhausted). That enumeration distinguishes it from nearby quiz siblings like get_quiz_attempts and get_quiz_best_grade, which cover history rather than eligibility.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'call this before start_quiz_attempt and sanity-check the result.' That is a clear when-to-use rule tied to a named sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion case, which keeps it below a 5.

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