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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a single-record card via '(limit=1)' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, what errors may occur, or what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with little waste. However, vague phrasing such as 'и т.д.' and the cryptic '(limit=1)' reduce precision rather than earn their place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain required registry/filter usage and return behavior. It only gives a high-level card definition, leaving important operational details absent.

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 schema already documents registry values and filter_json examples at 67% coverage. The description maps loosely to registry categories ('дело СОЮ/арбитража, контракт, лизинг') but adds no guidance for the format parameter or how to construct filter_json.

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 identifies a specific resource, the market event card, and gives examples such as a court/arbitration case, contract, and lease. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not distinguish its purpose from the sibling dn_get_section.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus dn_ask, dn_capabilities, dn_clarify, or dn_get_section. The '(limit=1)' note implies single-record lookup but does not explain required inputs or selection context.

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