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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: that these destinations are owner-only, and that some linked actions are irreversible ('уходит сразу, отменить нельзя', 'Удалить проект целиком (необратимо, только владелец)'), which matters because the agent is handing the user a link rather than performing the action.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and the one-sentence delivery instruction before the enumeration, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The bulk is a per-enum glossary, which is justified at 12 values, though the mixed English/Russian prose and long run-on entry sentence slightly reduce scannability.

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?

For a link-generator with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers purpose, delivery format, and every enum value's meaning and risk profile. An agent has everything needed to pick the right `place` and present the link correctly.

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 only 50% — the `place` enum is a bare list of keywords — and the description compensates fully by explaining what each of the 12 destinations does (e.g. who pays for top_up, that broadcasts fire immediately, that delete_project is irreversible). project_id is already documented in the schema, so nothing is left 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?

The description states a precise verb+resource ('A direct dosai.pro link') and scopes it to the specific class of actions it serves ('what only the owner does by hand'), listing concrete examples. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, none of which generate cabinet links.

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 direct operational guidance on usage ('Give the link and say in one sentence which button to press') and defines the boundary of applicability (owner-only manual actions, not API-driven ones). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the programmatic equivalents, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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