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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the regional data is truncated to the first 50 rows with the total named, and no organization is identified or ranked in the response.

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 dense sentence, but front-loaded with the resource type ('Карточка специальности') and every clause names a distinct returned field, so nothing reads as filler. It is long yet appropriately sized for a detail-card tool.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing the data blocks and the disclosure caveats. The only real gap is the absence of any guidance on the two input parameters.

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 0% for both parameters ('шифр', 'название') and the description never mentions them. It does not say whether lookup is by code, by name, or both, nor how the two interact when both are supplied, so the caller gets no semantics beyond the raw field names.

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 states precisely what the resource is ('Карточка специальности') and enumerates the concrete attributes returned (ФГОС name, level, group, qualification, admission-contingent-graduation series, regional breakdown). This lets an agent distinguish it from 'organization' or 'where_to_study', though no action verb is given and no sibling is named 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. The closing note that no organization is named and none is compared gives a partial boundary against the 'organization'/'where_to_study' siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over 'outcomes' or 'cohort_forecast', which clearly overlap with the series it returns.

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