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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful domain behavior by explaining that an author address only works after confirmation via email and that the "checked" field reflects this state, which is not captured by annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the return contents, and the second adds a critical domain rule about address confirmation. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape by naming the settings categories and the confirmation-state field. Combined with rich annotations covering safety semantics, an agent has enough context to call it 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?

There is a single required parameter, quiz_id, and schema description coverage is 100% with the description "ID опроса." The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 ("Возвращает") and resource ("настройки писем опроса") and enumerates the exact settings returned: author notification, respondent copy, author address confirmation states, and email templates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools such as add_quiz_email_recipient, confirm_quiz_email_recipient, and save_quiz_email_template.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to the email recipient and template management tools.

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