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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, non-idempotent call; the description adds the crucial fact that it sends an email and that registration and login are the same flow requiring only an e-mail. It doesn't spell out that repeated calls send repeated emails (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which keeps it from a 5.

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, then the suggested user-facing phrase, then the routing logic — all in a compact block. The quoted Russian phrasing is useful but slightly pads the 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the response flow (request_id to check, code to confirm) and does so completely, so an agent knows how to handle every outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explicitly directing the agent to pass session_id and by tying it to ruforge_diagnostic_start, and by clarifying that only the e-mail is genuinely required.

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: sends an email with a 'Save result' button plus a fallback 6-digit code to attach a diagnostic result to a RuForge profile. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ruforge_profile_check and ruforge_profile_confirm as the follow-up tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to offer it (immediately after ruforge_diagnostic_finish, with a suggested one-sentence phrasing) and gives the exact branching instructions for what to call next depending on whether the user pressed the button or supplied the code.

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