get_quiz_attempt_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the 'UNVERIFIED against a real quiz' reliability caveat and the finished-attempt precondition, which an agent would not learn from structured fields.

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, both earning their place: the first carries the purpose, the second the reliability caveat, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and both parameters are documented in the schema. It covers purpose, precondition and a candid reliability warning; only the behavior on an unfinished attempt (error vs partial result) is left unstated.

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%: page is documented (0-indexed, -1 for all) and attempt_id cites start_quiz_attempt. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the grade and per-question review for a finished quiz attempt.' That clearly separates it from siblings such as get_quiz_attempt_data, get_quiz_attempt_summary and get_quiz_feedback_for_grade, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 qualifier 'finished quiz attempt' implies a precondition (do not call mid-attempt), and the schema's attempt_id description points to start_quiz_attempt as its source. Beyond that implicit constraint there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to the summary/data variants.

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