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. Beyond that, the description discloses the composition of the computed result (unit price, one-time setup, lead time, product cost, totals) and notes that multiple placements are allowed — genuinely useful context given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating limits (e.g., the 10-placement cap) or auth/rate constraints.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence front-loads the purpose ('exact cost of logo application') before the breakdown of outputs. Every clause carries information, though the heavy semicolon/dash punctuation makes it denser than necessary.

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 usefully describes what is returned, and it mentions multi-placement support. However, for a nested-parameter calculation tool it omits where product_id/place_id originate, the 10-placement maximum, and any assumptions about units, leaving real gaps even after accounting for the annotations.

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 low (33%), so the description must carry weight, and it only partially compensates: it flags that there can be several placements, which matters for the nested prints array, and implies product_id drives the product cost. It never explains where product_id comes from or clarifies the width/height or method fields beyond what the schema already says. Marginal value over the schema.

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 precise verb+resource: it computes the exact cost of applying a logo to a product using the same calculator as the website. It enumerates what the result contains (price per unit, setup fee for the run, production time, product cost, and totals per unit and per run), which is far more specific than the bare title 'Расчёт нанесения'. Siblings (get_product, search_products, list_print_methods) are lookups, so the calculator's role is plainly distinct.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus the lookup siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing valid product_id/place_id first. Usage is only implied by the purpose itself (an agent would invoke it when a quote is needed). No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, so it sits at the implied-usage level.

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