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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating return fields and disclosing the price semantics ('Цена «от» у дверей за полотно'), which an agent would otherwise misread as a range minimum for a full set.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then return shape and the price caveat. Nothing is repetitive, though the parenthetical field list and the price note could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (id, название, ссылка, цена от/до, наличие), which is exactly what is needed. Six parameters at 83% coverage are mostly self-documented; only pagination and limit behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 83%, so the schema already documents razdel, zapros, cena_ot/cena_do, and smeshchenie. The description restates the search dimensions at a coarse level but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: search for doors and fittings, explicitly framed as analogous to on-site search, with the fields it searches on (модель, серия, цвет, тип) and the supported filters. It distinguishes itself functionally from tovar (single-product lookup) but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'как в поиске на сайте' gives the agent a useful mental model for when this applies, and the filter set implies catalog-browsing use. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of razdely for browsing or tovar for a known item, and no prerequisite instructions.

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