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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: each result row is a specific tech-spec position, the first response page contains Aggregates, and the tool requires an MCP service connection or it will return a refusal. This adds meaningful operational context not present in the 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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds output-field details, use case, response behavior, and access requirements. Each sentence earns its place, though the long list of row fields makes it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return row structure, the presence of Aggregates, and the access constraint. It does not explain what Aggregates contain, but the schema covers all parameters and the use case is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces which fields are searchable and describes row contents, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Поиск по товарным позициям технических заданий в планах-графиках 44-ФЗ' and defines the row granularity as one position of a tech spec inside a plan position. It lists the output fields and the use case 'увидеть будущие закупки до публикации извещения', which clearly separates it from tender and contract search siblings.

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 provides a clear usage context: seeing future purchases before the notice is published, and notes an access prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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