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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral facts — it produces two document formats and returns downloadable links, and it hardcodes supplier details (ИП Гусев) with real prices — but it says nothing about persistence, side effects, or permissions.

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 that front-load what is produced and how it is delivered. The trailing note on supplier details and real prices is slightly tangential but short, so overall it is efficient.

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 8 parameters, a nested walls/openings structure, no output schema, no annotations, and 13% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to call this tool correctly. It would need at least parameter-level hints and guidance on which inputs are meaningful for a valid proposal.

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 13%, so the schema does not carry the load, and the description must compensate. It only vaguely frames the input as 'параметры раздевалок', adding no meaning for seats, walls, openings, concept, lockers, width, or material — the eight parameters remain largely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ('Сгенерировать') and concrete artifacts (коммерческое предложение + ТЗ as docx + xlsx) and says it returns download links — an agent knows what comes out. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like make_project, make_tender_package, get_quote, or quote_project, so tool selection still requires guessing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. which API key / auth context), and no mention of alternatives among the many make_*/quote_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the proposal-generation path.

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