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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns the structural format of a funnel and clarifies that drafts are sent entirely in this format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: two short sentences that front-load the core definition of the tool and then provide actionable usage context. No redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool, the description is complete. It explains what the format contains, when to read it, and how drafts relate to the format. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys what the agent will learn from the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as describing the funnel format ('Формат воронки: блоки, их настройки и стрелки') and explains that it should be read before assembling or editing a funnel. It distinguishes itself from data-reading tools like get_funnel or check_funnel by focusing on the structural format rather than funnel contents.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Прочитать до того, как собирать или править воронку' (read before assembling or editing a funnel). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand when this reference is needed.

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