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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a dependency on the MCP-service of the page 'Исполнение · Объекты закупок' and states that the tool returns a refusal without it. It also details the row structure, which helps predict the response shape given no output schema.

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 text is a long run-on sentence with a dense list of output fields; while accurate, it would benefit from bullet points or sentence breaks. It does front-load the purpose, but the structure hampers quick scanning.

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?

Considering the absence of an output schema and the 14 parameters, the description compensates by enumerating the expected row fields and noting the access dependency. It doesn't cover all edge behaviors (e.g., total limit semantics) but those are documented in the schema.

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 describes all 14 parameters with 100% coverage; the description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, only output field details. 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('сведения об исполнении контрактов') and verb ('Поиск'), and specifies the output granularity (one row per product/work/service). It names executions_summary for KPI needs but does not explicitly differentiate from other search_contract_* siblings, so not a full 5.

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 only usage guidance is implicit: the phrase 'KPI по той же выборке — executions_summary' suggests using executions_summary for aggregate metrics instead of this tool. The access prerequisite is mentioned but no comparisons to other search_contract_* tools are provided.

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