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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful framing that these are input-widget answers, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite the limit/offset parameters, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the parameter-sourcing rule. No redundant restatement of the name, title, or schema, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and where the identifiers come from. It omits any note on how limit/offset paginate the results, which is the one remaining 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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-referential meaning beyond the schema by specifying that report_uuid originates from get_quiz_report and widget_id/widget_hash from get_quiz_structure, clarifying the provenance and dependency of the required params.

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 ("Возвращает") and a precisely scoped resource: text answers / input-widgets for a specific widget within a report. This clearly separates it from broad siblings like get_quiz_answers or get_quiz_report, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required identifiers come from (report_uuid from get_quiz_report, widget_id/widget_hash from get_quiz_structure), which is genuine routing guidance between dependent tools. It stop short of naming an explicit exclusion or contrasting with get_quiz_answers, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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