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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not explain what 'служебные опции' actually are, what scope they cover, or what the caller receives. For a read tool with no output schema, that is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it under-specifies rather than being genuinely well-structured for a tool with an undocumented return value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for telling the agent what 'hidden service options' are returned and why they matter. It does not, and it also omits any disambiguation from the widget- and workspace-level hidden-option tools. Only the simple single-param shape keeps this from being a 1.

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% and there is only one parameter (quiz_id, documented as 'ID опроса'), so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 here.

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 and resource ('Возвращает скрытые служебные опции конфигурации опроса'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings in the same family such as get_quiz_widgets_hidden, get_workspace_hidden_files, or the create/update/delete_hidden_option tools. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which 'hidden options' surface each tool targets.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With several sibling tools touching 'hidden' concepts, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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