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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: it is non-destructive ("без удаления за вами") and takes no lock ("без замка"), which matters on a shared node. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the export exceeds the default limit, so the safety profile is only partly covered.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause is somewhat figurative ("право выхода без замка"), which costs a little clarity but still conveys concrete guarantees.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be described. However, for a one-parameter bulk-export tool with no annotations, the description should address truncation/limit behavior and completeness guarantees; those gaps keep it merely adequate.

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 single `limit` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 5000 that the description never mentions. For an "export ALL facts" tool, whether limit silently truncates the export is the most consequential semantic detail, and it is left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Выгрузить все факты и конверты узла одним JSON" gives a specific verb (export/dump) and a specific resource scope (all facts and envelopes of the node, as a single JSON document). That distinguishes it in spirit from point-lookup siblings like soma_recall or soma_cold_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase "право выхода" (right of exit) implies the backup/portability/migration scenario, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as soma_recall for targeted retrieval versus this bulk dump.

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