ghl_course_get_quiz_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description still earns credit by disclosing the required location token, the OAuth scope (courses.readonly), and that a Version: v3 header must be sent — all operational facts not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded well with the path-parameter caveat, but the auth requirement is stated three times ('Location token with courses.readonly', 'Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: courses.readonly'), and the raw endpoint plus source-file reference add bulk an agent rarely needs.

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?

For a 3-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies auth, versioning, and the key id-mapping fact. Only a hint about what the question objects contain is missing, which is a minor gap for a simple list endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explicitly maps the {productId} path parameter to the course (product) id, which the schema only labels 'Product id'. quizId and locationId get no extra detail, but the schema already names them.

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: 'List questions for a quiz', scoped to a course (product) and quiz. The lead sentence resolves the naming ambiguity between 'product' and 'course', which is the main thing that could confuse an agent picking among the many ghl_course_* siblings.

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 read-only listing intent is clear from 'List Quiz Questions' and the read scope, so usage is implied. However, it never contrasts with ghl_course_get_lesson_quiz or ghl_course_upsert_quiz_questions, which sit adjacent and cover overlapping quiz-question territory, and it gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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