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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the data source is vendor documentation summarized on drxinfra.ru, and for releases outside 4.12/25.2 the tool reports the gap "instead of guessing." That last point is valuable because it tells the agent a negative or limited answer is intentional rather than a failure.

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?

Scope and sourcing come first, the coverage limitation second, filters last — a sensible front-loading order. The opening sentence is a long component enumeration that could be trimmed, but every clause still carries information about what is and isn't in the table.

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-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies source, release coverage, and fallback behavior, which is most of what an agent needs to decide to call it. It does not describe the shape of the returned table or whether component matching is fuzzy, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% and both parameters already carry examples and semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline applies. The description only restates that filters are optional and names the two filter dimensions, adding no matching behavior (substring vs exact, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema already implies.

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 names a concrete resource — supported OS/DBMS/messaging/search/container versions for Directum RX drawn from drxinfra.ru — and bounds it to RX 4.12 and 25.2, so an agent knows exactly what lookup it performs. It lacks an explicit verb ("Returns"/"Looks up") and never names a sibling (e.g. upgrade_checklist or search_site) that an agent might otherwise pick for compatibility questions.

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?

It states the coverage boundary clearly ("covers RX 4.12 and RX 25.2 only") and that filtering by component and RX version is optional, which implicitly tells the agent when the tool is and isn't applicable. However, it gives no explicit routing versus the sibling tools, so the agent must infer that version-compatibility questions go here rather than to upgrade_checklist or search_site.

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