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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior: the output is Markdown in Russian, covers Directum RX operations, and contains absolute links; however, it does not describe not-found or invalid-id handling.

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 sentences are front-loaded with the resource and output format, then the accepted input forms, then link behavior. There is no filler, and the example URL earns its place by making the accepted format concrete.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema description and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: output language/format, content domain, accepted id forms, and link behavior. It omits not-found handling, but that is a minor gap for this retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance (ids come from find_error/search_site) and a concrete URL example beyond the terse schema text. It still repeats the same errors/<slug>, blog/<slug>, slug, URL formats rather than defining edge cases.

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 opens with a concrete resource and scope: full text of a drxinfra.ru error page or blog article about Directum RX operations. It also names find_error and search_site as the producers of the id, which lets an agent distinguish this fetch step from those lookup tools.

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 gives clear usage context by saying the id comes from find_error or search_site and by listing accepted id forms, so an agent knows to call those tools first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with search_site beyond that source relationship.

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