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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it explains what opening the link does (request window, selection pre-filled in comments, user only enters a phone), that a manager calls back during business hours, that product names/prices/availability get injected, and that up to 10 products are allowed. It does not state whether the link expires, is single-use, or whether anything is persisted server-side, which are the main remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, followed by what happens on the link and then per-parameter guidance. Every sentence carries information (including the important PII warning), though the paragraph is a bit dense and could be split for scanning.

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-parameter link generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, downstream user flow, and both parameters thoroughly — including the return artifact (a URL) implicitly. Missing only details on the returned value's form/expiry, which an agent rarely needs to act.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters — and it does. It spells out the required `summary` content (object, area, operator or frequency, needed services, wishes) plus a hard rule to exclude PII, and explains `product_ids` accepts ids or urls, caps at 10, and clarifies that names/prices/stock are enriched automatically.

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 states a specific product: a link to the site's request form with the selection pre-filled in the comment field. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like usilitel_equipment_pick (selection) — this is the final conversion step that hands the user a ready-to-submit form.

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?

"Давайте её, когда человек готов заказать, хочет расчёт, консультацию или монтаж" gives an explicit trigger condition covering the main intents. It does not name a sibling alternative or state what to do beforehand (e.g., pick equipment first), but the "с уже заполненным подбором" phrasing implies the prerequisite.

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