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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond this by specifying the row semantics ('одна строка = один план-график заказчика'), listing the returned fields, and disclosing the failure mode when the MCP service is unavailable ('без него инструмент вернёт отказ').

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 definition is compact (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and row format before mentioning alternatives and access. Every clause adds information: result semantics, sibling routing, and a required access precondition — no filler or repetition.

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 still conveys the return shape by enumerating the columns of each row and the granularity (one row per plan schedule). It covers access requirements, alternatives, and basic filtering context; only minor details such as pagination behavior and the total-count cap are left to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — every parameter already has a meaningful description in the input schema, so the tool description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it focuses on output fields, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 verb and resource — 'Поиск планов-графиков закупок 44-ФЗ' — and enumerates exactly what a result row contains: plan number/version, publication and approval dates, customer INN/EIS registration number, region, financial amounts, and position count. It also distinguishes itself from sibling position-level tools by explicitly pointing to 'search_plan_tech_specs и search_plan_objects' for 'Позиции планов в разрезе товаров'.

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 implies when to use this tool by naming the two sibling tools that cover plan positions in product detail, so an agent can route between header-level and position-level searches. It also discloses an access precondition: the MCP service for the 'Тендеры · План-график' page must be connected by the KRA SOFT manager, otherwise the tool returns a refusal. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, hence 4 rather than 5.

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