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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose return keys (total, offset, limit, results) and mentions pagination, which helps since there is no output schema. It omits critical behavioral context such as read-only nature, query matching semantics, and permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no obvious filler. The second sentence adds return-value information that is useful given the absent output schema, though the description remains terse overall.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers output keys and mentions filters/pagination, but leaves the required query parameter and three code-based filters completely unexplained, and does not help route against sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It vaguely references 'filters' and 'pagination', but never explains the required 'query' parameter, nor the semantics or format of region_code, district_code, or community_code.

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+resource ('Пошук територій') and lists features (full administrative addresses, filters, pagination). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling search_territories_detailed, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never explains when to pick search_territories versus search_territories_detailed, list_territories, or get_territory.

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