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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose the return shape (short product cards rather than full records) and pagination via offset, but says nothing about result ranking behavior, whether filters are combined with AND/OR, or any limits/costs of calling it repeatedly.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a dense parameter glossary; for a 13-parameter tool this structure is appropriate and each line maps to a parameter. It reads as a list rather than prose, but there is no wasted sentence.

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?

Given 13 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers every filter, the sort/limit/offset paging model, and the granularity of the returned cards. The remaining gap is how multiple filters interact and default behavior when everything is empty.

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 entirely, and it does: it explains query matching semantics (all words must appear, searched across name/article/specs) and enumerates valid values for section, brand, band_mhz, operator, object_type and sort. It also documents limit (1–50), offset, price range and the search_specs/in_stock_only toggles, leaving essentially nothing undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: find equipment in the «Усилитель сигнала» catalog, and closes by routing to usilitel_product_details for full cards, which separates it from the details sibling. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from usilitel_content_search or usilitel_products_compare, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter walkthrough and by the closing hint that this tool returns short cards while usilitel_product_details gives details. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance on choosing between search, content_search, and compare, so the agent must infer.

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