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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it names the returned artifact (report_uuid) and discloses that this identifier is a required input for two sibling tools, which is workflow information found nowhere in the schema or 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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then filtering capability, then the downstream dependency. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 read-only report tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and the key output token plus its consumers. The remaining gap is the relationship to report-generation siblings (generate_filtered_report, generate_ai_report) — it is unclear whether this tool produces a report or only retrieves an existing one.

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 date_from, date_to, quiz_id and is_complete are already fully documented, including the default for is_complete. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level and adds no format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 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 ('Возвращает детальный отчёт по виджетам опроса'), so the agent knows it returns a per-widget report rather than raw answers or a summary. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent report tools such as get_quiz_summary or generate_filtered_report, so the differentiation is partial rather than sharp.

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?

Usage is implied: filtering by completion status and date range, plus a clear downstream dependency chain pointing to get_quiz_report_files and get_quiz_report_inputs. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_quiz_summary, get_quiz_report_filters, or the generate_* report tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a report must be generated first).

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