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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload in unusual detail: an evaluation containing price, status and on-site items to confirm, plus ZIP archives in GLB/FBX/OBJ/DAE/IFC4/DXF/SVG, a GLB link, and a configurator link. It omits side effects, permissions, or cost/latency traits, but for what is effectively a read/compute quote tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every following fragment adds a distinct piece of information (what it accepts, what it returns, where to get codes). It is dense and slightly run-on but wastes little.

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 an 8-parameter quote tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned evaluation fields and artifact links. Combined with the required-vs-optional split the agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-choice criteria remain implicit.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (family, finishId, infillId, schemeId, leafDesignId, finishColorCode). The description restates those concepts as a shopping list (схема открывания, профиль, стекло, рисунок) without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (цена/3D-модель перегородки) and the exact scope: glass LOFT or door-leaf partitions sized to an opening. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling quote_door by naming the partition families it handles and routes code lookups to get_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 points to get_codes(kind=partitions) for the code sub-need, which is a useful routing hint, but never states when to choose this tool over quote_door, find_partitions, or how_to_order. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly bounded.

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