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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: results come 'с указанием страниц-источников для проверки' (with source pages for verification), signaling that values are cited and auditable rather than free-form. It does not state permissions, caching/staleness, or the response shape, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned fields. The field enumeration is long but each item is substantive, since it substitutes for a missing output schema. Minor redundancy from the colon-separated list but no filler sentences.

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, annotations, or parameters, the description is the only specification source, and it compensates by enumerating the returned fact categories and the fact that sources accompany them. That is close to sufficient for a static read-only lookup; only the exact response structure and any freshness guarantees remain unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the schema itself; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead spends its words on the return content.

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 names a specific resource (facts about the organization «Проект ПРОФТЕХПОЛ») and enumerates exactly which facts are returned: canonical name, legal entity, experience, number of completed objects, cities, warranty, office address. This distinguishes it from data-listing siblings like list_geo and list_services. It lacks an explicit contrast with the closest sibling, faq, which also covers organizational information.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated fact categories — an agent can infer this is the tool for company metadata rather than service or geography lookups. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as faq for question-shaped organizational queries, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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