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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 6 results, ordering by profile completeness, rejection of unknown enum values, exclusion of price-less profiles under max_price, and the empty-result remediation hint. The return-field inventory is also disclosed even though no output schema exists.

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 scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the details-tool routing follows immediately. It runs long as a single dense paragraph, and the booking-button sentence is tangential to tool selection, but no sentence is empty 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (slug, name, description, subjects, exams, cities, formats, languages, price with unit, verified-documents flag, link, total count) and the result cap and ordering. Combined with the explicit sibling handoff for detail retrieval, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and every enum parameter already documents its allowed values and meanings, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds that all parameters are optional and must come from the enums, plus a restatement of the max_price 'от' comparison already present in the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — selects up to 6 published tutor profiles on tutors.kz — and enumerates the filter axes (subject, exam, city, format, language, max price). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_tutor by naming what the latter returns. An agent can distinguish it from every listed sibling without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes detailed single-profile lookups to get_tutor using the slug from this response, and explains the empty-result path (the response suggests what to relax). It also says all parameters are optional and that only enum values are accepted. It lacks an explicit negative case (e.g., when not to search at all), so it falls short of a full 5.

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