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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently describes the async flow: AI prepares a draft and a specialist receives a request, which implies side effects (ticket creation). It also states 'source of truth' and mode=status for checking, adding context beyond the schema.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides useful information: topics, flow, and mode=status. It is structured with lists and a clearly described process, making it easy to scan without being redundant.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, topics, modes, async workflow, and source of truth. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is partially implied by 'ready answer from database' and 'check answer by number'. Overall, it is adequately complete for a consultation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds the overall flow and the mode=status context, but does not add new details about individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Техническая консультация по бассейну' (technical consultation on the pool), which is a specific verb+resource. It lists exact topics (drawings, BIM, fittings, foundation) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pool_price or generate_kp by emphasizing consultation and the ticket flow.

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 the consultation flow (ready answer → miss → request with number) and explicitly mentions mode=status for checking answers. It gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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