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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a pure explanation tool that returns a documented field set (what, legal_effect, free, single, plans, certificates, limits, storage, payment, links) rather than performing any action. It stops short of stating that the content is static/non-personalized or whether tariffs are current, hence not a 5.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the definition, then legal meaning, tariffs, then the invocation trigger and return fields, ending with sibling routing. Every clause carries information; the enumerated return-field list is slightly long but earns its place because no output schema exists. Minor cost: the return list makes it a heavier read than the core purpose requires.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the exact response keys, plus the free/paid tariff structure and the legal framing. Combined with the zero-parameter schema and the routing lines, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; the description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead documents the output shape.

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 specific resource and scope: it explains ARTprotect depositing (sha-256 file fixation, timestamp, registry number, QR-verified certificate), its legal basis (ст. 1257, 1259 ГК РФ), and cabinet tariffs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming start_deposit, verify_deposit, and get_services_and_prices, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition ("Вызывай, когда спрашивают, как доказать авторство, что такое депонирование, зачем оно и сколько стоит") and then names the alternatives for adjacent intents: start_deposit for initiating, verify_deposit for checking a certificate, get_services_and_prices for lawyer pricing. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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