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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context: the return is a download link valid for one hour, the exported file includes link parameters to keep columns named, and the feature is tariff-gated. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it omits things like expiry/regeneration behavior.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences: purpose, dataset equivalence, payload composition, return value and access constraint. Efficient and well ordered, with only minor redundancy in restating the CSV/XLSX equivalence.

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 6-param export tool with no output schema, the description covers format, data equivalence, file contents, return value with validity window, and the tariff gate. It is largely complete; a note on link regeneration or file size limits would make it fully self-contained.

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% (all six params documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it needn't.

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 (Выгружает) plus resource (ответы опроса) and format (.sav), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the CSV/XLSX siblings by noting it is 'тот же набор данных, что в CSV и XLSX, но в виде, который открывают статистические пакеты'. An agent can tell it apart from export_answers_csv/xlsx/word without opening the schema.

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?

Identifies the usage context (statistical packages) and contrasts with sibling export formats, and discloses a gating condition ('Выгрузка результатов доступна не на всех тарифах'). It does not however give an explicit 'use this when X, otherwise use export_answers_csv' routing rule, so a small gap remains.

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