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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the price row is conditionally present only when published, and instructs the agent to cite the returned URL.

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?

Purpose and content are front-loaded in a single compact clause, with the conditional caveat placed at the end. The bilingual restatement is somewhat redundant but does not obscure the core information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the content sections the agent should expect. Annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for a single-param read tool.

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 100%, with the slug's pattern and its provenance (from list_districts) fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates 'по slug' without adding format or example detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (get/overview) and resource (district), then enumerates the returned content (location, infrastructure, pros/cons, who it suits, related guides, price row). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_districts and the various get_* tools.

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 via 'по slug' and the conditional note that the price row appears only if published. The description never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_districts or get_guide; that routing hint lives in the schema's param text, not the description.

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