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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this is an account-level library and that each record is a reusable question snapshot, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering — so with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the downstream-use detail. It is tight with essentially no filler, though not unusually polished.

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 exists, so the description must partially carry return-value burden; it does disclose that each entry holds a question snapshot reusable in update_quiz_widgets. It omits pagination/count/ordering details, keeping it short of fully complete for a list endpoint.

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% and the single workspace_id parameter is already documented in the schema (ID воркспейса из workspace://list). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Возвращает библиотеку избранных вопросов аккаунта' (returns the account's library of favorite questions), which is concrete and distinguishable from save_favorite_question/delete_favorite_question. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls short of a 5.

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: it explains the data is 'готовый к передаче в update_quiz_widgets' (ready to pass to update_quiz_widgets), hinting at the fetch-then-apply workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so it stays at minimum-viable guidance.

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