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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the decisive behavioral fact that is nowhere in structured data: the call is a dead-end stub that yields a waitlist link, not a plan. It also flags the downstream obligation not to over-promise to the user, which meaningfully changes how an agent should sequence calls.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: intent, actual behavior, then the alternative route. The most decision-relevant fact (Pro is not open) is placed early, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter stub with no output schema, nothing material is missing: the agent learns what it returns, that it will not satisfy the user's request, and which sibling to fall back on. Annotations already cover safety, so the remaining burden lands on the description and it is met.

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 0%, so the description has to carry both parameters — it does name them by concept ('по интересам и городу'), which maps to interests and city. But it gives no format detail: nothing on language, whether interests are free-text tags or a controlled vocabulary, or whether an empty call is valid despite zero required parameters. Partial compensation only.

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 nominal purpose (a personal weekly plan by interests and city) and immediately corrects it with what the tool actually does: returns a waitlist/application link because Pro isn't open yet. It also names the sibling that produces real plans (search_events), so an agent can tell it apart. It loses a point only because the leading 'weekly plan' framing is a purpose the tool does not fulfill, requiring the agent to read past it.

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?

Explicit guidance on both edges: Pro is not open, so this tool only returns a signup link, and the agent should not promise the user a finished plan from it — build the plan via search_events instead. The alternative and the condition selecting it are named outright.

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