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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key constraints around 'competitorsAnalysis' and empty filters, and 'Получить' implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior, auth requirements, or what happens on invalid input.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence provides a rule or constraint. It is slightly redundant with the schema descriptions, but there is no filler or excessive length.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. With two parameters, no annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the critical call constraints; only a brief explicit note that this is a read-only retrieval would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both project_id and limits_filter, including the same competitorsAnalysis and empty-filter rules. The description adds one useful nuance — that 'competitorsAnalysis' is not included in base limits — but otherwise restates schema semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Получить лимиты пользователя' (get user limits), with optional filtering by limit names. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from sibling project/keyword/artifact tools without needing to inspect the 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 explicitly states the optional filtering behavior and two important usage constraints: 'competitorsAnalysis' is not a base limit and requires a project ID, and an empty limits_filter is not allowed. It does not name an alternative tool, but no direct sibling alternative for user limits exists.

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