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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavior: the response is one row per contract with listed fields, the first page contains Aggregates, and the tool depends on a specific MCP service and will refuse without it. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and granularity, then covers output, the alternative tool, aggregates, and access in four focused sentences. Every sentence carries useful operational information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and 15 optional inputs, the description gives enough response-shape detail (contract fields, aggregates) and preconditions to let an agent invoke the tool correctly. The remaining parameter information is already fully present in the input 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 optional parameters. The description mostly summarizes response content and access rather than adding meaning to the parameters; it does not materially extend parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific action and resource — 'Поиск заключённых контрактов (44-ФЗ и 223-ФЗ)' — and clarifies the row granularity (one row = one contract). It names get_contract as the detail/card tool, so an agent can distinguish this list search from the related contract-card tool.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use get_contract with cctUniqID for a contract card with line items. It also states the access prerequisite (MCP service connected by a KRA SOFT manager; otherwise the tool returns a refusal). It does not enumerate all sibling search_contract_* tools, but the primary list-vs-detail distinction is present.

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