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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the return is a download link valid for one hour (TTL limits retries) and the scope is questions not answers. It doesn't describe failure cases or rate limits, so not a 5, but well beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then formats, then return behavior, then scope boundary. No filler or repetition; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return value (time-limited download link). Combined with the fully documented nested sheet object, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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%, including per-field defaults and format caveats (txt ignores qr/logo, paper only for pdf/word). The description only restates the format enum already in the schema and adds no new parameter syntax, 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 ("Собирает печатную версию опроса" / assembles a printed version) and resource, plus concrete scenarios (hand out, approval, fill by hand). It explicitly distinguishes itself from export_answers_* siblings, which share the export_ prefix.

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?

Names three concrete use cases and, crucially, states the exclusion + alternative: this is about the questions, not the answers, and answers go through export_answers_*. An agent can route correctly without inference.

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