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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results come from catalog relationship links rather than lexical matching and that this is 'надёжнее обычного поиска', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it says nothing about permissions, result formatting, empty-result behavior, or how the limit is applied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by example queries and a mechanism note. Efficient, though the trailing parameter note reads like an inline schema gloss rather than prose and could be trimmed or folded more cleanly.

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 read-only lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys purpose and input semantics adequately but omits what a result looks like (list of similar services?) and omits the limit parameter entirely. Enough to call it, but not complete.

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 must compensate. It does explain the required 'name' parameter well (service name, alias, or ailibri card link), but the 'limit' parameter (default 8) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb and resource ('чем заменить конкретный сервис: аналоги и похожие') and explicitly distinguishes itself from ordinary keyword search ('Работает по связям каталога, а не по словам'), effectively separating it from the sibling search_ai_tools. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from a search tool without opening either schema.

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?

Concrete trigger phrases ('аналог Notion', 'чем заменить Midjourney', 'альтернатива Photoshop') give clear when-to-use context. It also hints at the mechanism difference versus keyword search, but does not explicitly name search_ai_tools as the fallback for non-alternative queries or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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