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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral detail. It adds an access/authentication note (the MCP service must be connected by a KRASOFT manager, otherwise the tool returns a refusal) and clarifies that the tool searches only by line name and returns a defined set of specification and notice fields. 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs in the return fields, the key limitation, the alternative tool, and the access caveat. There is no fluff, but the long semicolon-separated enumeration makes it slightly heavier to parse than 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?

With no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the returned fields (specification position fields plus notice fields). It also covers the access constraint, the alternative path for notice-number filtering, and relies on the 100%-covered schema for parameter details, making it complete for a read-only search tool.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds value by explaining the query scope ('по наименованию строки') and explicitly warning that there is no notice-number filter, steering agents away from expecting an ntfNum parameter.

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 по строкам спецификаций (документации) извещений' and clarifies the unit of search (one line = one specification position). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_tender_tech_specs by noting the absence of a notice-number filter, so an agent can tell tools apart.

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 states exactly when this tool is appropriate: text search by line name only, and explicitly routes the agent to search_tender_tech_specs (ntfNum) for positions of a specific purchase. It also discloses the access prerequisite and the failure mode when the MCP service is not connected.

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