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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool produces a download link rather than inline data, and that link expires after one hour — an operational constraint not derivable from the schema or annotations. It still doesn't say whether the export is generated synchronously or how a large selection affects latency.

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?

A single sentence with the action first and the most decision-relevant detail (the one-hour link lifetime) attached. Nothing is padded and nothing unnecessary precedes the verb.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return artifact and its TTL, which is the most important missing piece. However, with six filter parameters and no guidance on when this exporter is preferred over its PDF/CSV/XLSX siblings, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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% — every one of the six parameters, including the ids/excludedIds interaction and the is_deleted/is_complete/is_screenout defaults, is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Экспортирует ответы опроса в Word') and names the output format, which implicitly separates it from the CSV/SPSS/XLSX export siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so differentiation is left to the agent to infer.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling exporters (export_answers_csv, export_answers_xlsx, export_answers_spss) that an agent must choose between. The agent must guess which format tool fits the request.

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