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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: the returned link expires after one hour. It still does not say whether a file is persisted in workspace storage, whether repeated calls re-issue the link, or whether tariff limits apply.

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 front-loaded sentence that covers action, resource, output format, return value, and link lifetime with zero filler.

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 present, the description correctly fills the gap by describing the return value and its one-hour validity. It is largely complete for a one-parameter export tool, though it omits any note on link regeneration or storage side effects.

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?

There is a single parameter (quiz_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g. where to obtain the ID), making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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), resource (сводку опроса) and output format (PDF), plus the return artifact (ссылка на скачивание). It implicitly separates itself from export_answers_* and export_filtered_report_pdf by naming the summary scope, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for a PDF summary export. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_quiz_summary or share_summary_link, and no stated prerequisites or permissions.

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