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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (a public page created on ailibri.com), the return value (a short link), a hard input constraint (2–30 tools), and a rejection rule (services outside the catalog are not accepted). It stops short of stating auth/account requirements or whether the page is editable/deletable afterwards.

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 what, then the when, then per-parameter semantics in a scannable labeled list. Slightly verbose in the middle sentence describing page contents, but every block serves a distinct purpose and nothing is truly 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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the action, the trigger conditions, all parameter semantics, and the returned artifact (short link). Only the absence of any auth/permission or irreversibility note keeps it from being fully 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 supply all parameter meaning and it does: title is the user's question in their own words, tools are aliases/card links in priority order limited to 2–30, question is the verbatim original question, note is a 1–3 sentence recommendation, and comments is an alias→reason map. The 2–30 bound and the foreign-service rejection are constraints found nowhere in the schema.

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 and resource: save found services as a single collection page on ailibri.com and return a short link. This is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings (search_ai_tools, get_ai_tool, list_categories) and an agent can tell it is a publishing action without opening the 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?

Explicit triggers are given: call it when the answer contains three or more services, or when the user says «списком», «сохрани», «скинь ссылкой», «поделиться с коллегой». It also explains the value trade-off (one link instead of a list), which is genuine when-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.

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