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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the output is large, and coverage explicitly separates what is documented here from what must be checked in official documentation. It does not describe the return shape in detail, but the listed sections give a reasonable preview.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists the document contents compactly, and ends with the alternative-tool warning. Every phrase carries useful information; nothing is 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?

For a single-document retrieval tool with a simple one-parameter schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing context: what the document contains, that it is large, and when to prefer a narrower sibling. No output schema exists, but the enumerated sections adequately describe the return.

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?

There is only one parameter, slug, and schema description coverage is 100% with an example (yookassa). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the entire service record as one document, and enumerates its sections (coverage, scenarios, authorization, methods, errors, nuances). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scenario, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: if the task is already clear, use get_scenario instead. The warning that the response is voluminous adds practical guidance about cost, and the full-record use case is implied clearly enough for routing.

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