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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavior: 'A closed or unknown id returns found=false' and the format of the id. This exceeds the annotation coverage with useful context about edge cases.

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 sentences with no fluff. The purpose, id format, returned fields, and edge-case behavior are all front-loaded in a compact manner. The Russian phrase 'Карточка закупки' adds a small redundancy but does not harm conciseness.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description covers the id format, what the response contains (customer, deadline, price, etc.), and the behavior for closed/unknown ids. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, nothing essential 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?

The input schema provides only a type and no description for 'id'. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact format ('<source>:<number>') with a concrete example ('goszakupki:3653566'). This is essential information that the schema lacks, making the parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 ('get') and resource ('one open procurement'), and gives the id format with an example. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_tenders (which implies searching) and list_regions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this tool is for fetching a single procurement by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_tenders. It does mention the found=false behavior for closed or unknown ids, which gives some context, but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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