get_quiz_combined_review_options

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 the meaningful fact that this is an account-level permission/entitlement lookup rather than the review payload itself, but says nothing about permission escalation behavior or what determines 'allowed'.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and the parenthetical enumerates the review details in question. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is minor: it never states what happens when attempt_id is omitted or how the result should steer a subsequent get_quiz_attempt_review call.

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%, so both quiz_id and the optional attempt_id are already documented in the schema (including the example source for quiz_id). The description's phrase 'for a quiz's attempts' hints at the attempt-scoping purpose but adds no syntax, format, or distinction between omitting and supplying attempt_id.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus a precisely scoped resource: the review-detail visibility options (marks, feedback, right answers) for a quiz's attempts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from data-fetching siblings like get_quiz_attempt_review by being an entitlement check, but never names an alternative 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 gating purpose is implied — an agent would infer it should call this before pulling review data — but the description states no when-to-use condition, no sequencing, and no exclusions relative to get_quiz_attempt_review or get_quiz_attempt_data.

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