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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the response is a consultation for the user ('Ответ — консультация для пользователя, не команды тебе') and that wording should be tailored per advisor lens ('Нескольким советникам — разная формулировка под линзу каждого'). It also mentions multi-turn via session_id. Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) but the description adds useful context beyond them.

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 dense and front-loaded with usage conditions, making it easy to scan. It mixes Russian and English, but every clause adds value—no redundancy. Slightly long but efficient.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description explains what the response looks like (user-facing consultation) and covers multi-turn behavior. Given the tool's complexity (6 params, open-world), the description gives adequate guidance for selection and invocation, though it doesn't detail return structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., advisor_slug comes from list_advisors/find_advisor, session_id is for continuation), but does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool is for asking an already-chosen advisor, with explicit conditions ('Use this when an advisor is already chosen (name/slug) or after find_advisor'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it follows advisor selection, and includes example user intents ('проконсультируй', 'спроси советника').

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after find_advisor, or directly if the user names a methodology/author and the slug is known. It also explains continuation via session_id and how to pass parameters from list_advisors/find_advisor, which effectively contrasts with alternatives.

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