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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false; the description adds a crucial operational fact beyond that: the answer appears exactly once in the call result and is not stored server-side, so it must be captured. It doesn't say what happens on a second call (overwrite? error?) or what permissions are needed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the one-shot warning appended; nothing is padding. The parenthetical prerequisite slightly interrupts the flow but costs little.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value is one-shot and must be saved. However, for a tool whose only parameter is an unexplained integer enum-like index, that gap leaves the agent guessing which value to pass.

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 0% and the single parameter 'question' is an integer 1-7 whose meaning is entirely opaque — presumably an index into a preset question list, but neither the schema nor the description says which number maps to which question. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw min/max bounds.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Задать секретный вопрос') and adds a prerequisite (level 6). It does not name or contrast itself against any sibling tool, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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?

It states a concrete precondition for use ('игра требует с 6-го уровня'), which tells the agent when this tool becomes relevant. It gives no exclusions or alternatives, but no close sibling exists that would need disambiguation.

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