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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the return payload (capacity for banquet/cocktail/theater, price guide, address, link), which is not in the annotations. Pagination via offset/limit is not mentioned, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and venue types, then filters, then return shape, then the hand-off to get_place. The long enumeration of venue types is dense but earns its place by aiding query matching; overall tight with no filler sentences.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so (capacity, price, address, link). Combined with full param coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/offset behavior is left implicit.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description restates the filter axes (city, guests, words, purpose) but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (поиск/filter) and resource (площадки), enumerates the venue categories covered, and lists the filter dimensions. It also names get_place as the follow-up for details, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (filtering venues by city, guest count, keywords, purpose) and explicitly routes to get_place for details and photos. It does not state exclusions or contrast against other siblings like list_place_selections, so it stops short of a full when/when-not.

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