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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the variables are 'hidden' and UTM/extra_fields-related; it says nothing about permissions, return shape, or volume beyond that.

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, front-loaded clause with no wasted words; the essential scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, if slightly terse.

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 getter with full annotation coverage and full parameter documentation, little is missing. However, with no output schema, the description could hint at the returned variable structure (keys, UTM vs extra_fields shape), which it does not.

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?

Only one parameter (quiz_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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/Returns) plus the resource (скрытые переменные опроса) and clarifies the content with concrete examples (UTM / extra_fields). This distinguishes it from a plain field getter, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sibling get_quiz_hidden_options.

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 alternatives such as get_quiz_hidden_options or get_quiz_crm_fields, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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