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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the return structure AND warns that offers #2/#3 are synthetic model projections (+9%/+17%), not real commercial proposals — a critical caveat for procurement use. It does not state read-only/pure-computation guarantees explicitly, keeping it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the calculation purpose and then the output structure; little waste. The parenthetical about replacing synthetic offers is long but earns its place as a usage caveat.

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?

It compensates for the missing output schema by describing the returned values, and flags the synthetic offers. However, for a 7-parameter calculation engine with 0 required params and 14% schema coverage, the description leaves too much of the input contract unexplained to be fully complete.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, yet the description adds no meaning for seats, width, lockers, or the cryptic `concept` enum values (max/bench/bench3/bench4) and `material` options. Only the nested `walls` fields carry schema docs, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (calculate NMCK per art. 22 FZ-44) plus the scope ('по конфигурации раздевалки'), which lets an agent tell it apart from the cart/file-based siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is not a full 5.

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 'по конфигурации раздевалки' and 'Без файлов' clauses imply this tool is for configuration-driven calculation rather than file/cart input, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. calc_nmck_cart), so the guidance is only implied.

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