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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the write/side-effect profile is covered. The description goes further, adding the cost model (2 500 ₽, +40 ₽/km beyond the MKAD, credited back on installation) and the downstream process (measurer surveys openings, produces an estimate, a manager calls to confirm the date). It does not discuss duplicate submissions or failure behavior, which matters for an idempotentHint=false booking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and pricing, then process, then the remont flag, then the consent condition — a sensible ordering. It is dense but each clause carries information; the pricing detail is somewhat verbose for a tool description but is genuinely relevant.

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 12-parameter write tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the process outcome (manager confirms the date) and the key behavioral constraints. It does not describe what a successful call returns or how errors/duplicates are handled, which leaves a modest gap.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two consent booleans ('с его «да» и согласием') and elaborates on remont, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema text already 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?

States a specific verb+resource: booking a measurer's on-site visit (заявка на выезд замерщика), immediately distinguishable from the ordering sibling oformit_zakaz. The scope is concrete and an agent can tell what action it performs. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against any sibling tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: 'Только по просьбе клиента, с его «да» и согласием' — do not invoke proactively, only on the client's explicit request and consent. This is a usable when-to-use gate. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. oformit_zakaz) or spell out when this should be preferred over them, so no exclusion guidance.

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