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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels itself as an 'AI-manager' and 'professional consultation' but does not explain the output format, whether it asks follow-up questions, if it is a read-only recommendation, or any limitations or side effects. The behavior is largely opaque.

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 front-loads the tool's identity and purpose: 'AI-менеджер: подбор бассейна...'. No redundant or extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Even though the 7 parameters are well-described in the schema, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the tool returns (a recommendation, a set of options?), what optional parameters imply, or how it fits with sibling tools like search_pools or calculate_total. For a consultation tool with 7 optional inputs, this is incomplete.

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%; every parameter has a detailed Russian description. The tool description itself only loosely references 'site, needs, budget' without mapping to specific parameters or their interactions. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'AI-менеджер: подбор бассейна по описанию участка, потребностей, бюджета' (AI-manager: pool selection based on site description, needs, budget). This is a specific verb+resource and partially distinguishes from siblings like search_pools by framing it as a consultation. However, it lacks detail on what the recommendation consists of (e.g., a model suggestion, a list, or a report).

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 implies usage when the user needs a pool recommendation given site, needs, and budget. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling tools, and no 'use X when...' guidance is present. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or how it compares to search_pools or consult_service.

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