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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (number of lockers, seats, total in ₽, visualization segments) which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, and 'рассчитать' implies a pure computation. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether any state is persisted by 'configure', or determinism.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the return summary follows. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 moderately complex calculation tool (nested walls with openings, enum-driven concept/material) the description covers purpose and returns, which partly compensates for the missing output schema and absent annotations. It still omits usage context and any caveats an agent would need to choose it over sibling pricing/quote tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'с учётом проёмов' reinforces the openings semantics already documented in the schema but adds no new syntax, units, or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb (рассчитать) plus a precise resource (раскладка шкафов для раздевалок по стенам) and an explicit secondary output (цену). An agent can tell this is the locker-room layout/cost calculator, distinguishing it from generic quote or product tools. It does not, however, name any sibling to contrast with, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when an alternative (e.g. list_concepts for width options, or a quote tool) should be preferred. The only cross-reference to a sibling (list_concepts) lives in the schema, not the description.

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