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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read nature. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool requires a specific MCP service connection and will return a refusal without it, and it lists what each result row contains. 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: result structure, level/use case, and access prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what each returned row contains, how this differs from whole-purchase queries, and what happens if the required MCP service is unavailable. The schema covers the individual parameters sufficiently.

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?

All 11 parameters already have rich descriptions in the input schema, so the main description does not need to explain them in detail. The description provides general result semantics but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: searching purchase line items in notices (товарным позициям извещений). It clarifies the row-level granularity and the parent-notice fields included, and explicitly distinguishes this from whole-purchase search, making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools.

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 a clear intended use case: answering questions like 'кто и почём закупает конкретный товар'. It also clarifies that this is the item level, not the procurement level, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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