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, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the fact that both standard and custom texts are returned, but says nothing about pagination, return shape, or localization fallback behavior beyond the schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler, though it is too terse to carry much additional value.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is owed, though the description could have mentioned localization behavior.

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 both quiz_id and the lang default ('По умолчанию — язык самого опроса') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Возвращает') and resource ('надписи (тексты) опроса') with scope ('стандартные и пользовательские'), which distinguishes it from the write sibling update_quiz_texts by verb alone. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the read/write split is inferable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_quiz_texts or other get_* tools; no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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