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 the annotations lack: it discloses that up to 10 guides are returned with title, URL, description and update date, and that results are Russian-language only.

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?

Front-loads what is searched and what is returned. The bilingual duplication (Russian then English) is somewhat redundant, but each line is otherwise tight and purposeful.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and all parameters plus the safety profile are covered by schema and annotations. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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%: query (with examples and language note) and limit (1–10) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'up to 10' ceiling and adds no format or syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (searches) and resource (published Kvartiry-Phuket guides) plus the topical scope (buying, renting, taxes, visas, Phuket life). An agent can distinguish it from get_guide by the verb/scope, though the description never names that 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 implied by the topical scope and the English line instructing to cite returned URLs, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_guide or search_faq routing, nor any exclusion guidance.

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