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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it describes the access prerequisite (MCP service of the specific page, connected by a KRA SOFT manager), the failure mode ('без него инструмент вернёт отказ'), and the output granularity. This exceeds what annotations alone 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses compact sentences. The list of output fields is somewhat long, but it is relevant because there is no output schema. Overall, each sentence contributes useful information without excessive verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned per result. It also covers access dependencies, failure behavior, and filter simplicity relative to a sibling tool. For a 6-parameter read-only search tool, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the filter categories (text, region, dates), listing searchable fields such as МНН, trade name, plan number, IKZ, and customer, and explaining the row semantics. This complements rather than merely repeats the schema.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Поиск по объектам закупок в планах-графиках 44-ФЗ'. It further clarifies the result granularity ('одна строка = позиция плана') and explicitly contrasts itself with search_plan_tech_specs by noting simpler filters, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 description names search_plan_tech_specs as the relevant alternative and indicates this tool has simpler filters: 'текст, регион и даты'. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or all possible sibling alternatives.

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