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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is an official guide, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what the response format is (e.g., text, PDF), or if there are any side effects. For a simple retrieval tool, this is a significant omission.

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, concise phrase that lists the content areas without verbose repetition. It front-loads the key resource name and purpose. However, it lacks a proper verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'provides') and is not structured as a full sentence, which slightly detracts from its directness, but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. It tells the agent what the passport covers and implies it is a reference document, but it does not explain the output format or how the 'section' parameter influences the response. The description is adequate for basic comprehension but lacks detail that would help the agent anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema already provides a comprehensive description of the 'section' parameter with all enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's topical list roughly aligns with the enum values, but it does not clarify each option beyond what the schema already does.

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 identifies the resource ('Паспорт бассейна Laguna Pools') and the topics covered (installation, operation, conservation, care, water treatment, additional equipment), making it apparent that the tool retrieves an official pool guide. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_pool_specs or get_architect_package, which could also deal with pool-related documentation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The section parameter in the schema hints at usage, but the description itself gives no usage context, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.

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