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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the response is the public visitor view, includes specific profile fields, and returns “Анкета не найдена” for an unknown slug. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the read-only, closed-world annotations reduce the need for that detail.

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 description is front-loaded and compact: the main purpose comes first, followed by slug sourcing and the sibling alternative. The final sentence about booking via a button on the card or profile page is more product context than tool-invocation guidance, so it is slightly extraneous but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does enumerate the key returned data: about, subjects, prices with units, education, document verification, and whether the profile currently accepts requests. Combined with the slug guidance and not-found behavior, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the locale enum and default behavior. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by requiring the slug to come from search_tutors, warning against guessing, and specifying the not-found outcome. The locale parameter is left to the schema, which is adequate.

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 verb and resource: it shows one tutor profile from tutors.kz as a site visitor sees it, and it enumerates the profile content. It also explicitly distinguishes this from search_tutors, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: take the slug from search_tutors and do not guess it, and use search_tutors rather than this tool to find tutors by criteria. It also names the not-found response for an unknown slug. The main alternative is clearly routed.

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