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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the operation is reversible (a toggle), that it affects reports and summary specifically, and that the answers list is unaffected — exactly the kind of side-effect boundary an agent needs. Missing only permission/auth requirements.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary effect is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Every sentence carries information.

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 simple 3-parameter boolean toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, direction, and scope boundary. It does not mention what the call returns or confirm whether repeated toggling is safe, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 is_hide is already documented in the schema as 'true — exclude from reports and summary, false — include.' The description restates the same hide/unhide semantics generically without adding format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (excludes/returns) and resource (the answer's presence in reports and summary), and it explicitly bounds the effect with 'В списке ответов он остаётся виден.' An agent can distinguish this from read tools like get_quiz_answers or other toggles (toggle_quiz_webhook, toggle_quiz_email) without opening any 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?

It makes clear the tool is bidirectional (hide or un-hide) and clarifies the scope boundary — the answer stays visible in the answers list — which tells the agent when this is the right tool versus a read/export tool. It does not, however, state prerequisites, permissions, or name any alternative tool explicitly.

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