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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable context by describing the fallback behavior when no service is recruiting in the city, including that it 'честно говорит об этом' (honestly says so) and shows editorial-rated options. This goes beyond annotations and informs the agent of an important conditional outcome.

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 concise yet information-dense, front-loading the purpose, then explaining inputs, outputs, and the edge case. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure flows logically from what the tool does to how it behaves in specific scenarios. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core inputs, outputs, and a key edge case, which is sufficient for a read-only recommendation tool. It does not explicitly mention the optional city parameter's effect on country-wide selection, but that is documented in the schema. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return structure (main recommendation, alternative, rule). Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is only 25% (only city has a description), but the description explicitly maps the three main parameters to their meanings: transport (foot, bike, car), time (fulltime, parttime, flexible), and priority (income, payout, easyStart). This directly compensates for the sparse schema and clarifies the enums, enabling correct invocation. The city parameter is covered by the schema's default behavior note.

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 verb ('Подбирает' = selects) and resource ('сервис'), and specifies the input format (three quiz answers) and output (recommendation, alternative, rule). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_services by emphasizing the quiz-driven, rule-based selection process, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool is used with three quiz answers, which implies when to call it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on how it differs from find_services or get_service, leaving the agent to infer the use case. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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