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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds value beyond them: the public link opens without login and can be forwarded to a decision maker, both a built report and a published quiz are required, and link vs. PDF export consume different tariff entitlements. It does not address whether repeated calls create new links or how a link is revoked.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded before prerequisites and tariff notes. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what is produced, access model, and prerequisites. Gaps are minor (no statement of what the call returns, e.g. the URL, or whether links expire).

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% — both quiz_id and the format enum (default link, PDF download valid one hour) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond mentioning the two modes. 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 (sharing) and resource (AI report) plus the two output modes (public link / PDF). The 'AI-отчёт' qualifier does distinguish it from the generic report/summary siblings by resource, but it never names the alternatives (share_report_link, share_summary_link, share_answers_link), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 preconditions: sharing is possible only for a built report, and the quiz must be published because the report page lives at its address. That is real when-to-use context. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over the sibling share/export tools.

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