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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: only published profiles are retrievable, price may be absent ('если указана'), and contacts shown on the page are direct/free. It omits what happens when the profile is not found or when neither id nor alias is supplied.

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 resource and returned fields are front-loaded in a single dense sentence. The trailing line 'Связь с артистом напрямую, бесплатно' is promotional rather than selection-relevant and does not earn its place, keeping it from a 5.

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?

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, most needs are met. However, with zero required parameters and two alternative identifiers, the description should clarify that at least one of id/alias must be provided and how they behave relative to each other; that gap matters for correct invocation.

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 the schema itself explains that id comes from search_artists and alias is the slug without domain. The description adds no further meaning about how the two identifiers relate or which to prefer, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Подробная информация об одной опубликованной анкете') and enumerates the fields returned (описание, город, категории, сайт, стоимость, контакты). It implies a single-record lookup versus the sibling search_artists, but never names that sibling or states the relationship 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?

Usage is only implied: 'одной опубликованной анкете' signals a single-record fetch rather than a list/search, so an agent can infer this is the drill-down step after search_artists or list_cities. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated in the description itself.

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