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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the data comes from the registry of Russian industrial products — but says nothing about result granularity, matching strictness, or empty-result behavior.

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 with no wasted words, front-loaded on what the tool returns. It is appropriately sized, though it could afford one more sentence of routing guidance without becoming bloated.

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 one-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch the return shape (a list of codes? code plus description?), which it only gestures at in words.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-described 'product' parameter (name, min 3 characters), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format, language, or normalization guidance for the query string.

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 specific verb ('Подсказывает') plus the resource ('коды ОКПД2') and the data scope ('в реестре российской промышленной продукции'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name a sibling or contrast itself with them, but the resource is distinct from the tender/document tools.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned despite five siblings in the tender domain. The use case is only implicitly derivable from the resource it returns.

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