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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return fields (description, size), the existence and role of a note warning field, and the non-obvious caveat that price is not a 'baseness' signal. It omits operational traits like result limits/pagination or auth requirements, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then matching behavior, then the selection/price caveat. It is a dense single block, but nearly every clause earns its place; only the lengthy price caveat is slightly verbose.

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 3-param search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining both what it matches and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around result volume/limits, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that query matches across артикул (both platform and 1C), name, dimensions and description, and that category/material act as filters. This goes beyond the schema's bare examples.

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 (поиск) and resource (весь каталог продукции AquaMania), quantifies the scope (162 SKU) and enumerates the searched fields and filters. An agent can immediately tell this is a catalog lookup tool, distinct from the surrounding quote/calculation siblings (calc_nmck, make_kp, get_quote).

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?

Gives clear in-context guidance: choose by description/size, and do not treat price as an indicator of a 'basic' model — instead ask the customer when the note flags ambiguity. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or name an alternative, so it falls short of the 5 threshold.

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