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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent outbound write. The description adds the fix-receiver scenario but omits significant behavior: the schema exposes date_from/date_to for bulk resending, yet the description frames it as operating on a single log entry, leaving the bulk mode undisclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the motivating condition trailing. No waste, though the brevity contributes to the missing bulk-mode detail.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a mass-resend mode implied by date_from/date_to, the description should at least flag the bulk variant. Annotations cover safety, but the single-entry framing is incomplete for the tool's actual surface.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the bulk date range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and even under-describes the mass-resend path; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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+resource — repeating the send for a journal entry ('Повторяет отправку по записи журнала') — which distinguishes it from generic resend tools. It does not name the close sibling resend_integration_logs or otherwise delimit scope against it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: after the receiving endpoint is fixed, without waiting for a new respondent submission. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer resend_integration_logs), so no explicit when-not guidance.

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