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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete output trait: «Ответ содержит ссылку на страницу готового плана с бронью туров», which tells the agent the result is a link rather than a side effect.

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 short sentences cover what the tool does, when to use it, and what the answer contains. There is no repetition of schema field names and no filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output and the intent triggers clearly. The only real gap is not naming sibling exclusions, but the planning purpose is still clear enough for correct selection.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the 7-day default and example interests. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: «Собрать план поездки по Камчатке по дням», and lists concrete content zones, activities, prices, season warnings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the trigger phrases make its planning role distinguishable from nearby get_tours and create_booking_request.

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?

«Используй, когда туриста интересует …» explicitly states when to invoke the tool, citing natural tourist requests. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or sibling exclusions, which keeps it slightly below 5.

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