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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the first page contains Aggregates, each row is a shipped position with a detailed field list, and the tool returns a refusal if the required MCP service is not connected. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 description is long but purposeful: purpose is front-loaded, the output composition is enumerated because no output schema exists, and the aggregates/access notes are placed at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information; only the field list is verbose, but it earns its place.

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 complex 18-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the output shape, first-page aggregates, and the access-dependent failure mode. It does not explain filter combination behavior or route to sibling tools, but the schema handles individual parameter semantics, making this adequate.

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% across all 18 parameters, with descriptions and constraints already provided. The tool description focuses on output structure and access rather than input parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Поиск по исполнению технических заданий контрактов на лекарственные препараты', and clearly defines the result granularity as one row per shipped item. This delivery-line focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contract_executions or search_contract_products.

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?

The intended use is explicit: search drug contract delivery lines against contract technical specifications. It also discloses an access prerequisite and the failure mode if the MCP service is unavailable. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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