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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a hard cap of 10 cards per call and the result ordering (catalog-recommended, then popularity), which the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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-loads purpose, then the return shape, then ordering, then the sibling cross-reference — a logical order with no filler. The long enumeration of card fields is justified given there is no output schema, though it is the densest part of the text.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns: card count cap and the exact fields returned. Combined with fully documented parameters and the get_venue pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 each of the 9 parameters is well documented in the schema (including examples, bounds and the note that venues without a price still match price_max). The description only adds the generic phrase 'по словам и фильтрам' and does not deepen any individual parameter's meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (поиск по каталогу Площадкин по словам и фильтрам) and enumerates what a result card contains. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_venue (details) and the list_* catalog tools referenced in the schema, so an agent can identify its role without opening a sibling.

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 clear routing context: this is the search/listing entry point and 'Подробности — get_venue' directs the agent to the sibling for full detail. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., versus browsing list_cities/list_categories directly), so it falls short of a full 5.

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