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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about how paging interacts with results, whether files can be missing/expired, or any access requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by where the required identifiers come from. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 should ideally sketch the return shape (file entries, URLs, pagination via limit/offset), but it stops at naming the resource. Safety is covered by annotations and all six parameters are documented in the schema, so it is adequate but incomplete for a no-output-schema 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%, including the same provenance notes ('UUID виджета из get_quiz_structure'), so the description largely repeats structured data. The baseline of 3 applies; no additional meaning such as default paging semantics or widget scope is added.

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 файловые ответы (загруженные файлы)') scoped to a specific report widget, which cleanly separates it from text-oriented siblings like get_quiz_answers and the report-level get_quiz_report. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the 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 gives a useful prerequisite chain — report_uuid from get_quiz_report, widget_id/widget_hash from get_quiz_structure — which implies the usage workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling answer-retrieval tools such as get_quiz_answers, nor any exclusion conditions.

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