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

Read-only intent is already in annotations, but the description adds important behavioral limits: it returns only links, not file contents, and describes the failure mode when the MCP service is unavailable. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose/return fields, content limitation, sibling routing, and access precondition. No filler or repetition of schema.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists returned fields, excludes file content, names the alternative for structured specs, and states access prerequisites. An agent can invoke confidently without opening schemas.

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?

The schema already fully documents uniqId with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying the field origin (ntfUniqID from search_tenders), connecting the parameter to a sibling tool's output.

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 ('Список документации') and resource (procurement notice documents by internal ID), and enumerates returned fields and example document types. It differentiates itself by explicitly redirecting parsed tech-spec items to search_tender_tech_specs.

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 specifies the required input source (ntfUniqID from search_tenders) and names the alternative tool for parsed tech-spec items. It also discloses the precondition: the MCP service of the 'Тендеры · Извещения' page must be connected, otherwise the tool refuses.

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