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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact outside the annotations: the download link expires after 1 hour. That is a real operational constraint an agent must handle, but nothing is said about rate limits, size caps, async generation, or how long large exports take.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and format, then the return value and its expiry. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 read-only export with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description supplies the two things it must: output form (download link) and lifetime (1 hour). The remaining gap is routing among the CSV/XLSX/SPSS/Word export siblings, which is the tool's most likely misuse path given the sibling list.

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%, with each of the 6 parameters documented in Russian (including defaults for is_deleted, is_complete, is_screenout). The description adds no parameter details, so it cannot exceed the baseline. The 1-hour-link fact is return-value info, not parameter info.

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 (экспортирует) and resource (ответы опроса в CSV), and the return value is named explicitly (ссылка на скачивание). The sibling set includes export_answers_spss/word/xlsx and export_quiz_print, so the format ('CSV') is the key differentiator and it is stated directly in the name and description.

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 or routing to alternatives. The five sibling export_* tools mean an agent needs to know which format to pick and under what conditions; nothing in the text tells it when CSV is preferable to XLSX/SPSS/Word, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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