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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new operational traits: the consent requirement, the callback SLA, and a hard rate limit of 3 requests per day — information an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, then prerequisites and consent, then the follow-up behavior and rate limit. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: required inputs, consent, response behavior (phone callback), and volume limit. It stops short of noting the industry audience (Russian-language, Russian phone format), but nothing needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the per-field meaning is already documented. The description still adds value by emphasizing which fields are mandatory and the consent precondition attached to them, slightly above the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 and outcome: sending the agency a request to learn the exact fee and free date, for one artist or a lineup. This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling tools (search_artists, get_artist, list_*), though the differentiation is implied rather than named.

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?

Provides concrete operating context: name and phone are required, the agent must ask for and obtain consent to share them, the agency calls back within one business day, and a max of 3 requests per day applies. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use first for artist lookup, but the 'slug артиста из search_artists' reference in the schema closes that gap.

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