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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only idempotent operation, and the description adds real behavior: archived surveys are excluded from the normal list, each item carries is_archived and type, and workspace_id defaults to all accessible accounts including invited ones. This exceeds the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates capabilities efficiently in one dense passage. The regular/micro distinction is explained twice (in the description and the schema), creating mild redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses return-item fields (is_archived, type) and default scoping, which is what an agent needs. It could mention pagination interplay between limit/offset more explicitly, but coverage is solid for a read tool.

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 every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the type enum and archive behavior but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Возвращает список опросов аккаунта') and defines the default scope (all live surveys). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_quiz_structure or get_quiz_answers, but it never names an alternative list-like sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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?

Describes concrete usage contexts: no params returns all live surveys, and name/folder/type/archive filters each have a stated purpose. Missing an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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