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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (registry-record numbers tied to a specific regulation) but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or coverage limits of the registry.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and the lookup key, then appends the regulation context. No filler, nothing repeated.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what matters: what is returned (manufacturers with registry numbers) and why. It is slightly thin on what a result entry contains, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents okpd2 and product. The description mentions OKPD2 as the lookup basis but adds no format, validation, or matching semantics (e.g., exact vs prefix) beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific resource (Russian manufacturers) and the lookup key (registry record numbers by OKPD2 code), which is far more than restating the title. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic search tools, though it never explicitly frames the action as 'find/list' nor contrasts itself with find_okpd_codes.

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 supplies a concrete use case — needed when applying the national regime under PP RF No. 1875 — which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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