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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no files are generated (suggesting a pure computation/read), but says nothing about permissions, cost of computation, or side effects; no output schema exists to fill the gap.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first gives the operation and its key constraint, the second enumerates inputs and the either/or pattern. No wasted wording.

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?

With 7 parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more about valid input combinations and what the returned quote data contains. It gestures at the return ('спецификацию и итоговую цену') but is thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is only 43%, but the description compensates by naming the key inputs (walls/width/material/concept, lockers, seats) and, importantly, explaining the two alternative input modes (configurator params OR explicit locker/seat counts). Only 'name' is left to the schema.

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 ('Сформировать спецификацию и итоговую цену') and resource (quote/KP data), and the qualifier 'без генерации файлов' implicitly separates it from file-producing siblings like make_kp. Clear but does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 phrase 'без генерации файлов' hints at when to prefer this over document-generating tools, and the configurator-vs-count input note implies context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs calc_nmck, quote_project, or make_kp, so usage is only implied.

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