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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (what facts the page contains), but says nothing about return format, language, or currency of the data. With annotations doing the safety work, a 3 is appropriate.

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 content list plus a one-phrase call to action, front-loaded with the most important routing instruction at the end. Every phrase carries information; nothing is padding.

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 params and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the topics covered. It could say more about the response shape (single text blob vs. structured fields), but it is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — who we are, contacts, address, hours, rating, payment, delivery, how ordering works — which makes the resource concrete even without an explicit verb. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like product_details or delivery_quote, though it doesn't name them.

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?

"Начните с этого" explicitly tells the agent to call this tool first, which is real routing guidance for an entry-point tool. It doesn't state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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