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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing the non-obvious pricing rule ('цена «от» у дверей за полотно'), which an agent would otherwise misinterpret.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contract, then the one caveat that matters. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 compensates by listing return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of explaining pagination (smeshchenie/limit cap of 20), but the schema covers those adequately, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains what zapros matches (model, series, color, type examples), how razdel scopes results, and clarifies the cena_ot semantics per leaf for doors. That goes beyond the field-level schema text.

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 (поиск) and resource (двери, погонаж, фурнитура) and clarifies the search semantics ('как в поиске на сайте'). It implicitly differentiates from razdely/tovar by being the keyword+filter search, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 description implies when to use it (free-text by model/series/color, within a section, with a price range), which maps to the params. It gives no explicit when-not or guidance on choosing between this and razdely/tovar, leaving that inference to the agent.

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