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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real diagnostic value beyond that: it discloses what the log actually contains (refusal text such as bot kicked, chat deleted, token revoked, plus the count of unsent messages), which is behavioral context the annotations cannot provide.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, diagnostic payoff second, sibling disambiguation last. No filler, though it is slightly denser than a strictly minimal formulation.

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?

A read-only, fully schema-documented tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema; the description explains what the log yields, which is the key missing piece. Only minor pagination/return-shape detail is absent, and that is already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents page ordering, per_page bounds, status enum meanings and the counts caveat. The description adds nothing about syntax or filtering beyond what is in the schema, 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 (Показывает/shows) and resource (журнал отправки ответов в мессенджер — Telegram или MAX), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_quiz_webhook_logs. An agent can tell it apart from email/webhook log tools without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('заявки не приходят в Telegram') and names the alternative log tool to use instead for webhooks. Clear routing context, though it stops short of an explicit when-not statement beyond the sibling pointer.

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