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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the row-wise granularity of results, which fields are included, the use of ntfNum for a full procurement's positions, and the hard dependency on the MCP service. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key grouping parameter and access prerequisite. It is slightly dense due to the enumerated fields, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: result-row semantics, the main filtering/grouping intent, and the access failure mode. It does not discuss pagination or total-count behavior, but those are already documented in the schema parameters.

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 schema carries most parameter meaning. The description's ntfNum note mostly restates the schema's own explanation ('вернёт позиции ТЗ этой закупки'), and it does not add meaningful clarification for other parameters beyond what is already present.

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 resource and action: searching by positions of technical specifications of notices, and enumerates the fields returned per row. It is specific about the unit of search ('одна строка = одна позиция ТЗ внутри лота'), but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as search_tender_specifications.

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 clear operational context: how to retrieve all positions of one purchase using the ntfNum parameter, and warns that the tool requires the MCP service and returns a refusal without it. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative search tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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