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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: answers are the practitioner's own words, verbatim, and are in Russian — the language detail is materially useful for an agent deciding whether the content fits the user's locale.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource, the fidelity of the content, the language, and the topic scope. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the topic enumeration tells the agent what coverage to expect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't say whether the FAQ is static or refreshed, which is low-impact for a read-only lookup.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No param syntax or format guidance is needed.

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 resource ('frequently asked questions with the practitioner's own answers') and enumerates the covered topics, so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from the many sibling get_* info tools, though the topic list implicitly separates it from get_available_slots or get_services_and_pricing.

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: an agent can infer it should call this for general practice questions (fit, rhythm, booking, cancellations). No explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative tool is named, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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