Show Quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that- no note on required IDs resolving, permissions, or failure modes. With annotations doing the work, the description contributes no incremental behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, which is good. But the concision is achieved by under-specification rather than by front-loading dense information, so it barely clears the minimum-viable bar.

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 takes three required IDs and has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what is returned (quiz metadata, questions, etc.) and whether the account parameter is needed. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the result shape entirely.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the account label caveat and ID semantics). The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('quiz'), so the basic intent is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_quizzes or list_quiz_responses, and 'a specific quiz information' is grammatically loose. An agent gets the gist but must infer the singular-vs-list boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_quizzes for enumerating quizzes. The only signal is that a single quiz is fetched, which the name already conveys.

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