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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note that the content is static reference material, no indication of response size or structure. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes no extra context.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the topic inventory is front-loaded. It is effectively a bare list, which limits structure, but nothing is wasted.

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-parameter, read-only lookup with full enum documentation and no output schema, the description covers the subject areas an agent would query. However, it never says what is actually returned (plain text, article, structured fields), which leaves a real gap for an information-retrieval 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'tema' parameter carries a full enum with a per-value description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's topic list loosely mirrors the enum values but adds no syntax or clarification beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 is a comma-separated inventory of content topics (delivery, measurement, installation, warranty, payment/returns, dimensions, choosing a door, ordering, about the store) rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer it retrieves store-policy information, but there is no verb, no resource noun, and no differentiation from siblings such as zapis_na_zamer (mentioned as 'замер') or oformit_zakaz (mentioned as 'как оформить заказ').

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives is given. The topic list hints at coverage but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over poisk, razdely, or the topic-specific siblings that overlap with the same subjects.

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