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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the deterministic nature and topic scope, but lacks details about behavior on no match, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and distinguishing feature (no AI generation). No redundancy, but could benefit from slight structural separation.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., answer format, behavior when no answer found). It fails to provide this, leaving the agent uncertain about the response.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('Вопрос клиента', 'Сколько ответов вернуть').

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 clearly specifies the verb ('детерминированный поиск' - deterministic search), the resource ('база частых вопросов об оценке'), and distinguishes from siblings by stating 'без ИИ-генерации', which sets it apart from ask_assistant and search_knowledge.

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 description implies usage for retrieval of predefined answers on specific appraisal topics and explicitly contrasts with AI generation, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like search_knowledge.

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