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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description's enumeration of returned fields adds content context in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, or behavior when the id is invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and the source of the id, then the payload contents. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields compensates well for the missing return documentation. The one substantive gap is the unresolved overlap with the sibling get_lot, which an agent cannot resolve from this description.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'id лота из search'. The description repeats that provenance but adds no syntax, format, or validity detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Полный текст лота по id') and enumerates the content returned (prices, deadlines, deposit, address, organizer, conditions). However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_lot, whose name suggests the same retrieve-a-single-lot operation, leaving a real ambiguity.

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 phrase 'id из результатов search' implies the intended workflow (run search first, then fetch a lot), which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against the near-identical sibling get_lot.

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