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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that changing mappings is not allowed and that altering the block form can silently break delivery, that reference data is fetched live from CRM (non-instant), and that access revocation leads to failure. These details go well beyond the readOnly and openWorld hints.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds constraints and behavior. It is informative but slightly lengthy; every sentence earns its place by covering distinct aspects (purpose, read-only nature, live fetch, failure mode).

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what data is returned (references and mapping), the read-only nature, the live-fetch latency and failure conditions, and that the shape is determined by delivery settings. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 each parameter has a description, so the schema already documents crm, quiz_id, sections, and deal_category_id. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is 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?

The description explicitly states what the tool returns: CRM reference data and the currently saved field mapping for amoCRM or Bitrix24. It names the exact entities (lead, deal, contact, company, pipelines, users, types) and distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like manage_quiz_crm_mapping by emphasizing it is read-only and shows what is already saved.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use it: to inspect current CRM fields and mappings before configuring delivery. It states that changes must be made elsewhere ('правят его в кабинете'), effectively directing to a different interface, though it does not name a sibling tool like manage_quiz_crm_mapping explicitly.

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