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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the name — it does not say whether the link is permanent, whether it can be revoked or re-issued, what access scope it grants, or whether calling it twice yields distinct links (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and output information noted elsewhere.

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 mutation that creates a shareable public link, the description omits the most important operational detail: the response is presumably a URL, but with no output schema and no mention of the returned value, the agent cannot know what it receives back or whether the link must be persisted. The optional date range also suggests a period-scoped summary that the description never mentions.

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 three well-documented parameters (quiz_id required, date_from/date_to optional with format examples and 'Опционально' notes). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Создает публичную ссылку на сводку опроса' — creates a public link to a quiz summary), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named siblings share_report_link, share_answers_link, and share_ai_report, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which sharing tool applies to which artifact.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives no condition for choosing this over share_report_link, share_answers_link, or share_ai_report, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring the quiz to be published before a public link can be generated.

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