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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that webhooks can self-disable after repeated failed sends and that IDs are only obtainable here, which shapes how the agent must sequence a later mutation. No pagination or volume details, keeping it at 4.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The return-value content comes first and the usage directive ('read before any edit') is front-loaded as the closing imperative, so an agent gets purpose and sequencing in one read.

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 list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, returned fields, a non-obvious behavioral trait (auto-disable), and invocation guidance. No output schema exists, yet the description summarises the return shape, so nothing critical is missing.

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% and there is a single parameter (quiz_id), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or scoping nuance for quiz_id, so the 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 (вебхуки опроса) and enumerates the returned state fields: address, method, enabled status, and auto-disable after failed sends. An agent can distinguish this from get_quiz_webhook_logs and the create/update/delete/toggle webhook siblings 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 when to reach for this tool: 'идентификаторы вебхуков приходят только отсюда — читайте список перед любой правкой,' which is a clear precondition for any edit. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. get_quiz_webhook_logs for delivery history), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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