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 real semantic context beyond that: absence is computed by education levels, not by specialties, and the server cannot convert city names to codes. It stops short of describing response shape or counts format.

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 tool's output content, followed by the input constraint and the absence-counting caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the opening sentence is long yet not padded.

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 must characterize the return content, and it does so by listing the aggregate dimensions returned. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 there is a single parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema's '5–11 signs' by adding that the value is an OKTMO code and that name-to-code resolution is unavailable server-side, which is meaningful behavioral input guidance an agent would otherwise miss.

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 (municipal summary) and enumerates its concrete contents: count of licensed organizations, education levels present and absent, training directions by aggregated groups, and neighboring territories. It is easy to distinguish from concrete-entity siblings like organization or specialty, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with regions_by_indicator or where_to_study.

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 rather than stated: it explains that the territory must be supplied as an OKTMO code and that no city-name resolution exists, which steers correct input. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, even though regions_by_indicator and where_to_study sit adjacent to this territory-aggregate purpose.

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