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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return payload (price.rub as retail price, 'applied' = what was actually assembled, ZIP/GLB links), and notes a 20-30 s assembly time for non-standard configs. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then returns, then timing, then a sibling pointer. Dense and largely waste-free, though the model-format enumeration (GLB, FBX, OBJ, DAE, IFC4, DXF) is verbose for a description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, which it does concretely (price.rub, applied, download links). Combined with the timing note and codes pointer, an agent has enough to invoke it, though 11 params at 55% coverage leave some gaps unaddressed.

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 55%, so the schema already documents several params (color, model, finish, opening, backMaterial). The description adds only marginal semantic value, mainly hinting that two-sided finishes are supported, which maps loosely to the backColor/backFinish/backMaterial trio without explaining them.

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+resource: it returns the price and a 3D model of a hidden door ('скрытой двери') parameterized by size and finish. The resource is specific enough to distinguish it from the partition-quoting sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 (quote a door given size/finish) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is the trailing 'Коды — get_codes(kind=doors)', which points to a sibling for obtaining model/finish codes rather than stating which quote tool to pick.

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