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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output artifacts (КП + ТЗ as docx/xlsx, returned via download links) and a non-obvious business rule ('Реквизиты — ИП Гусев, цены реальные'), but says nothing about side effects, whether the project is persisted, auth requirements, or how errors (e.g. unknown article) are surfaced.

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 dense sentences, no filler, and the core action (generate full-object КП+ТЗ from zones) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary detail about requisites and real prices. Slightly overloaded with parenthetical asides but nothing wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return value (download links to docx/xlsx). However, for a multi-zone document generator with nested zone objects, it omits how partial/invalid input is handled, whether a project entity is created server-side, and how it relates to sibling generator tools — leaving real gaps.

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 67%, so the schema already documents zones, type, walls, seats, concept, etc. in detail. The description adds only the multi-category framing ('шкафы + стеллажи + скамьи + дорожки'), while the only undocumented parameter (phone) is left unexplained in both places — adequate but not compensating for the 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 concrete verb and artifact: generate a finished КП + ТЗ (docx/xlsx) for an entire object from zones and return download links. It distinguishes scope ('на объект целиком', 'мультикатегория: шкафы + стеллажи + скамьи + дорожки'), which implicitly separates it from single-category generators like make_kp, but it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this when you have multiple zone types and want a full-object package', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the closest alternatives (make_kp, make_tender_package, quote_project) which all appear to produce overlapping quote artifacts.

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