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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by saying what the log actually contains: refusal reasons (bot removed, chat deleted, token revoked) and the count of unsent messages.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the diagnostic value, then the sibling disambiguation. No 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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return contents (refusal text, unsent count), and the schema fully covers the four inputs. Adequate for an agent to call and interpret it.

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%, with each parameter (page, quiz_id, per_page, integration) already documented including ordering and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description only surfaces the telegram/max distinction already captured in the enum.

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 (показывает журнал отправки ответов в мессенджер) with named scope (Telegram или MAX), and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_quiz_webhook_logs.

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?

Anchors the tool to a concrete diagnostic scenario («заявки не приходят в Telegram») and names the alternative webhook tool, so the agent knows when this is the right read. No explicit exclusion of other situations, but the routing signal is clear.

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