get_quiz_feedback_for_grade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description usefully clarifies that this returns configured text rather than a computed result, but it says nothing about what happens when no feedback is configured for that grade, nor about any auth or rate constraints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with the key concept ('grade-boundary feedback text') first and illustrative examples last. No filler and no redundancy.

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 simple (2 required params, read-only) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. What is missing is only the edge-case behavior for a grade with no configured feedback, which is a minor but real gap for an agent deciding how to handle a null or empty result.

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 the schema already documents both quiz_id and grade, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add anything about how 'grade' is interpreted — whether it is a percentage, a points value, or must land on a configured boundary — which is the one genuinely ambiguous aspect of the lookup.

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') on a precisely scoped resource: the grade-boundary feedback text configured for a quiz at a given grade. The parenthetical examples ('You passed!' / 'Please review chapter 3') make it unmistakable against siblings like get_grades, get_quiz_best_grade, or get_quiz_attempt_review.

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 is implied by the purpose but never stated: there is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no mention of alternatives such as get_quiz_attempt_review, which is the obvious place an agent might otherwise look for feedback. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right call.

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