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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait: if no candidate exists, an 'honest refusal reason' is returned rather than an empty result. However, it says nothing about authorization/mandate requirements, determinism, or what the 'id' refers to, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the failure behavior follows. Efficient and appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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 return values need not be spelled out. But the single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the described selection criteria (capability/mandate/price) have no corresponding inputs, leaving an agent unable to know what to pass for a routing call.

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?

There is a single parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. Worse, the criteria the description names (capability, mandate, price) do not correspond to any declared parameter, so the text implies inputs the schema does not expose, which is potentially misleading.

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 ('Подобрать исполнителя' – match/select an executor) with explicit selection criteria (capability, mandate, price). It is clear what the tool does, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like soma_claim or soma_verify, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (soma_claim, soma_send, etc.), nor any prerequisites. The only contextual sentence concerns the failure case (no candidate), which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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