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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call has no side effects (no integration created, sending not enabled) and it explains the meaning of the returned 'connected' state and the Telegram-only 'group_url'. With no output schema present, this return-value disclosure is valuable, though it likely not a full account of the response.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by caveats and then the sibling routing. It is dense and multi-clause, but each sentence carries distinct information with little waste.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: side-effect-free semantics, the meaning of the connected state, and the group_url variant for Telegram. Only a fuller enumeration of return fields is absent, which is a minor gap.

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%, so quiz_id and the telegram/max enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that telegram and max are the two targets but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it returns a link for adding a Telegram/MAX bot to a chat so survey responses are delivered there. It explicitly names manage_quiz_messenger as the sibling for settings, recipients and disabling, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames when this tool applies versus when it does not: it does not create an integration and does not enable sending, and the integration only appears after the user presses «Старт» in the bot. The routing sentence ('Настройки, получатели и выключение — manage_quiz_messenger') names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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