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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: the bot is platform-level, the user only adds it to a chat via a link, no tokens are entered, and delivery history lives in a separate tool. It does not spell out irreversibility of 'delete'/'remove_recipient' beyond what the annotations imply.

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 dense but front-loaded paragraph that opens with the resource and then lists operations. It repeats the field list (chats/groups/people, subject, excluded questions, buttons) after already framing it as what 'show' returns, which is mild redundancy, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 an 8-action tool with no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: it sketches what 'show' returns, explains the platform-bot/token model, and points to get_integration_logs. It does not describe error cases or confirm what a 'test' or 'activate' call returns, which would complete it fully.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the inverse-list semantics of hidden_widget_ids and the save_widgets/toggle_buttons conditions. The description reinforces these meanings (subject, excluded questions, buttons, recipients) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a concrete resource (sending quiz answers to Telegram/MAX) and enumerates the operations it performs (show, activate, deactivate, delete, toggle buttons, save widgets, remove recipient, test). It routes the log-reading case to get_integration_logs, but does not explicitly contrast itself with the email-notification siblings (e.g. toggle_quiz_email), leaving the messenger-vs-email boundary implicit.

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 clear operational context: it shows where requests go and lets you enable/disable, remove integration/recipient, edit composition and send a test. It also states a usage constraint ("Токены здесь не вводят") and redirects log needs to get_integration_logs. No explicit when-not guidance versus the email tools, so not a 5.

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