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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuine context: it explains why there is no write counterpart here (connecting means logging into a third-party account or entering a token) and what per-integration status is exposed (connected / sending enabled / tariff-allowed). This is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by what each integration shows, the diagnostic value, and the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Even without an output schema, the description discloses what is returned per integration (connection state, send-enabled state, tariff permission) and why it exists. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single required quiz_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('показывает, куда опрос отправляет ответы') and enumerates the exact integration channels (Telegram, MAX, AmoCRM, Битрикс24, Zapier, Google Таблицы). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_quiz_webhooks, so an agent can tell it apart from the closest sibling.

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?

It gives a concrete diagnostic use case ('почему заявки не приходят в CRM') and explicitly routes webhook-related questions to a named sibling ('вебхуки живут отдельными инструментами, начните с get_quiz_webhooks'). This is explicit when-to-use plus an alternative.

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