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

With no annotations, the description must clarify side effects, but the line 'Дыру можно закрыть, принеся факт — он проходит те же ворота записи' ambiguously suggests a write/closing capability while the input schema accepts only the optional 'days' parameter. It does disclose the three-party aggregation threshold, but omits whether the call itself is read-only, what output to expect, or any permission/rate-limit context.

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 description is compact (two sentences) and places the core definition first. It is slightly metaphorical ('нарисованный чужими вопросами') but not redundant.

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 simple one-parameter tool the description conveys the main purpose and threshold, but because there is no output schema it does not explain the shape of the returned gaps, and the 'days' window is only documented in the schema. This is adequate but leaves some operational ambiguity.

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?

The sole parameter 'days' is fully described in the input schema ('окно, по умолчанию 30'), so the baseline is met. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameter.

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 title 'Чего у нас нет, а спрашивают' plus description 'Список дыр... что спрашивали и на что мы не ответили' clearly identifies a read-only listing of unresolved user requests. It distinguishes itself from siblings (prism_ask, prism_find, prism_nearby) by defining the content as gaps that have been requested and not answered, with a specific threshold.

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?

The description implies usage when identifying unmet needs and mentions the minimum request threshold, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over prism_ask/prism_find or provide exclusions. The 'дыру можно закрыть' line hints at a follow-up action but doesn't name the alternative.

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