get_quiz_best_grade

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful conditional detail that a grade is returned only if an attempt has been graded, but it does not clarify behavior when no graded attempt exists, such as whether the result is null or an error. With an output schema present, return format details are less critical.

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 a single compact sentence with the key scope and condition front-loaded. There is no redundant or 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?

The tool is low-complexity: one fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema. The description states the resource and the graded-attempt condition, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. A minor remaining ambiguity is that 'best grade' is not further defined, though the tool name and output schema likely carry that meaning.

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%, and the single quiz_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'e.g. from list_quizzes' hint. The description only refers to 'one quiz' and adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it gets the account's best grade for one quiz. The conditional 'if any attempt has been graded' further scopes the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_grades or get_quiz_attempt_summary, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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 when the tool is applicable by noting the 'if any attempt has been graded' condition. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_grades, get_quiz_attempt_summary, or get_quiz_feedback_for_grade, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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