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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: result ordering ('Сверху идут привязанные и текущий опрос'), which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically. It stops short of describing pagination or totals.

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 the purpose, then the ordering note, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries information, though the ordering sentence could be merged without loss.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and fully described parameters, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the relationship semantics and result ordering. No output schema exists, but the description signals the return nature well enough.

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%, so limit, offset, search, list_id and quiz_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond 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 and resource: shows which account quizzes a promocode list is linked to. It clarifies the relationship direction (list → quizzes) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation sibling manage_promocode_group. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition: 'Нужен, чтобы не отвязывать вслепую: привязку и отвязку делает manage_promocode_group.' This tells the agent to read here and mutate there, removing all inference.

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