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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false), so the description rightly spends its budget elsewhere: sort order (newest first), inclusion of disabled links, and the exact per-link fields returned. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact enumeration of returned fields. It is longer than a typical crud tool but every sentence carries information useful for an agent, particularly the field list that substitutes for a missing output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description shoulders the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly (uuid, number, url, created_at, is_active, answers_count with null semantics, total). Adding the exclusion of respondent links makes the contract complete for a read tool whose safety profile is already in annotations.

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%, with limit and the section enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps to the section values ('сводку, отчёт или ответы опроса') and adds no syntax or default hints beyond the schema.

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+resource: listing public share links for a summary, report, or answers section, newest first and including disabled ones. The scope is unambiguous, though it never names the sibling tools that create those same links (share_summary_link, share_report_link, share_answers_link), so sibling differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing framing, and there is one useful boundary ('Ссылки респондентов на свой ответ в список не входят' excludes personal respondent links, distinct from manage_quiz_unique_links). But there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative, so guidance remains minimal.

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