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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait: each response includes a denominator (total subjects on the territory) and warns that the share is meaningless without it. However, it omits other important context like whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects, which are relevant for a 14-parameter query tool.

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?

The first sentence is informative and front-loaded. The second adds a useful quirk. The third sentence ('Verification is sold by everyone...') is a vague marketing phrase that doesn't earn its place and detracts from clarity. Overall length is acceptable but not every sentence carries weight.

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 tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return structure beyond the denominator, does not mention pagination/sorting (though sort is a parameter), and doesn't clarify the domain (business entities). The presence of sibling tools with overlapping territory themes increases the need for clearer context.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of filter dimensions (activity, size, tax regime, revenue, debt) that maps to several parameters, but it doesn't explain parameter syntax, units, or how parameters combine. It provides marginal value beyond the schema's own field descriptions.

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 the tool's function: identifying subjects on a territory by activity type, size, tax regime, revenue, and debt. The title reinforces this as 'detection' ('Обнаружение субъектов'). However, it doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'search' or 'find', and the subject type (UL/IP) is only in the schema, making it slightly less clear than it could be.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The final sentence 'Verification is sold by everyone, detection is not sold by anyone' cryptically contrasts verification with detection, hinting at a difference from prism_ask, but it doesn't state 'use this for detection' or name any alternative. No mention of prism_nearby or prism_needs at all.

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