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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authentication prerequisite (authenticated connector required, free), and that superseded/non-active document revisions are flagged. These are traits the annotations do not carry, though nothing is said about rate limits or result size.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and its contents, then the access condition, then the revision-flagging behavior. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration makes it slightly heavy.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (file types with download links), the access prerequisite, and a behavioral caveat about obsolete revisions. Nothing critical is missing, though the response format is only loosely sketched.

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% and there is only one parameter (number, 'Номер закупки'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for the number (e.g., where to get it), which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves procurement files (notice, technical spec, draft contract, clarifications) with download links from gentender.ru. An agent can distinguish this from get_tender (metadata) and search_tenders (discovery). It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?

Implies when it is usable by stating links only arrive when the connector is connected with login (free) — a real prerequisite. But it never says when to prefer this over get_tender or how it relates to the sibling tools, leaving usage largely to inference.

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