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 useful semantic context: each publication creates a snapshot, drafts are excluded, and is_live marks the snapshot currently visible to respondents. It also connects the output version_id to restore_quiz_version, which is valuable behavioral information beyond 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool shows, why drafts are excluded, what is_live means, and how the output relates to restore_quiz_version. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential semantics of the returned data (snapshots, exclusion of drafts, meaning of is_live). It does not describe all possible fields in the snapshot list, but without an output schema the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's result and usage. Minor gaps in return format detail are acceptable.

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 the input schema fully documents quiz_id, limit, and offset, including ranges and default values. The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it does not compensate for anything because there is nothing to compensate for.

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: 'Показывает историю публикаций опроса' (shows quiz publication history). It distinguishes the tool from related operations by explaining that drafts are not included and that snapshots are historical versions, not the current state. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_quiz_structure or get_quiz_summary.

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?

The description implies when to use it: to view publication history and to obtain version_id for restore_quiz_version. It also gives an exclusion: drafts are not listed because they are the current state, not history. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for accessing the current draft state, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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