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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read against a closed dataset, and the description's claim of a fixed Rosobrnadzor snapshot is consistent with openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: straight-line distance with a 1.41x road factor, exclusion of organizations without coordinates, cross-region selection, ambiguity refusal, and the returned total count plus per-organization bachelor's flag. No contradiction; strong supplementary context despite no explicit pagination or ordering details.

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?

Dense single paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and scope before caveats. Nearly every sentence carries operational weight (distance factor, coordinate exclusion, cross-border behavior, ambiguity refusal), though the closing data-source sentence is slight 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: total count in radius, per-organization bachelor's flag, and snapshot date. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained 'сколько' parameter and the absence of any ordering rule for results.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the two documented parameters (откуда, специальность) are already explained by the schema, while сколько and радиус_км have no descriptions at all — only bounds and defaults. The description partially compensates by explaining that radius is measured in straight-line kilometers and why road distance differs, but never explains what сколько limits.

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?

Names the exact resource (organizations with active licenses teaching a given specialty), the geographic scope (radius from a named settlement), and the distance metric (straight-line). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like specialty, organization, or territory because it is the only one that joins specialty to geography.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the specialty may be a FGOS code or a name, and ambiguous names produce a refusal with candidate list rather than a guess. It does not explicitly route to sibling tools, but the conditions for a successful call are unambiguous.

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