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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond this by revealing the output row format, guaranteeing numerical parity with the site showcase ('числа совпадают'), and disclosing edge-case behavior (services without published sums are appended at the bottom with a mark). This is substantive behavioral context beyond annotation coverage.

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 terse sentences in Russian, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output format, then a single edge case. No filler or repetition of schema content; each sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by specifying the return shape and one edge case. However, it does not explain how filters combine, clarify prerequisites, or describe pagination/limits, which would help given the tool's complexity and zero required 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 58%, so the schema documents roughly half of the 12 parameters. The description connects 'income per shift and per month' to the schedule parameter and implies sort behavior, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (citizenship, employment, transport, services) — an agent gets no added meaning for those from the description.

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 states a specific resource (a feed of services for one city) and a concrete output shape (rows of service × delivery method × tariff with ₽/hour rate, shift and monthly income). It implicitly differentiates from list_services by the city scope and by the computed income figures, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'same filters and sorting as the main page' clause describes parity with the site UI but does not route the agent between alternatives such as list_services, compare_services, or calculate_income. The agent is left to infer when this tool is preferable.

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