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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that the response is lightweight ('без тяжёлых данных') and includes token balance, contract semantics, and example questions, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, return format, or any limits beyond the lightweight hint.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is somewhat cryptic due to abbreviations and lacks a clear verb, but it remains compact and front-loaded.

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, so the description should explain return values more fully. It lists three kinds of content (token balance, contract, examples) but does not describe their structure or how an agent should interpret them. It is adequate but incomplete for a no-parameter capability endpoint.

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, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the schema is empty.

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 names content the tool exposes: remaining MCP tokens, the NL vs structured contract, and example questions without heavy data. However, it does not clearly state that the tool returns capability information, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like dn_ask or dn_clarify. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus dn_ask, dn_clarify, dn_get_event, or dn_get_section. The phrase 'без тяжёлых данных' hints at a lightweight check, but no explicit usage conditions or alternatives are given.

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