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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the 'active procurements only' scope, which is useful, but says nothing about result volume beyond the schema's limit or pagination 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and query modes first, filters second, return values last. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. It could drop the return clause given the schema, but it is still compact.

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 7 parameters all schema-documented, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description's return-fields clause compensates for the missing output schema and makes the tool fully actionable. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so every parameter including its format examples is already documented in the schema. The description names the same filters (регион, закон, ОКПД2, цена) without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (поиск) and resource (действующих госзакупок России), plus the two query modes (по словам / по номеру), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_tender, the likely single-record sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the two search modes and the listed filter set, which tells an agent when the tool is applicable. However, there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., that get_tender follows this for details), leaving routing to inference.

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