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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (per-zone breakdown, grand total in ₽, total НМЦК) and the 'no files' trait, which distinguishes it behaviorally from package-generating siblings. It says nothing about permissions, side effects, or any persistence, which for a quoting tool is a modest but real 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and closing with the output summary. Nothing is wasted, though it could have spent one clause on sibling differentiation.

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 complex nested-input tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (per-zone breakdown, totals, НМЦК). It stops short of telling the agent how this differs from the numerous quoting/packaging siblings, which is the main missing piece.

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% and the schema itself documents the nested zone fields (type, walls, openings, concept, material, items). The description adds the conceptual framing of a zone as locker-parametric or catalog-based, which mirrors rather than extends the enum descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: calculate an estimate for an entire project composed of multiple zones, and clarifies each zone is either a parametric locker-room calculation or a catalog item set. This scope statement (project-wide, multi-zone) does some differentiation work, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as get_quote or make_project, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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: 'Без файлов' suggests this is the pure-calculation path as opposed to the file-producing siblings (make_kp, make_project), and the multi-zone framing hints at the whole-object case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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