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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value: it discloses the content of the return payload (delivery outcome, response code and receiver body), which annotations do not convey.

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 with no padding; the main purpose is front-loaded and the diagnostic use case follows as a rationale rather than 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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool whose parameters are fully self-documented, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage context. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is a minor acceptable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (page, per_page, quiz_id, webhook_id) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the max of 30. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('возвращает журнал отправок вебхука') and immediately clarifies what the log contains (delivery status, response code and body). The closing clause contrasts it with the webhook configuration tool, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_quiz_webhooks without opening either 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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario — diagnosing 'почему данные не приходят' — and notes that the webhook setting itself won't reveal this. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (get_quiz_webhooks, resend_quiz_webhook_log, get_integration_logs), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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