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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: it auto-detects gender from patronymic or first name, and it returns the full declined form plus initials — useful output-shape context absent from the schema.

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 action, then examples, then behavioral notes, with an English gloss at the end. The inline examples are informative rather than padding; the only mild redundancy is repeating the action in English after the Russian.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing what comes back (full form and initials) and how gender and case=all behave. Remaining gap is the relationship between full_name and the split last/first/middle_name parameters, which only the schema covers.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by mapping the 'all' value of case (all six cases at once) and by explaining the gender-inference fallback, which clarifies why the gender parameter exists only as a backup.

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: declines Russian full names and job titles by grammatical case. The concrete examples («в лице генерального директора Иванова Ивана Петровича») make the output shape unmistakable and clearly distinguish it from siblings like amount_in_words or validate_requisites.

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?

Names the document contexts where it applies (contracts, powers of attorney, orders) and explains the case=all shortcut for retrieving all six cases at once. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name an alternative, but the domain of use is clear from the examples.

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