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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds substantial context: matching is word-based rather than semantic, up to three candidates ranked by word match, and found=false only under a low word-overlap condition — all behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 resource and topic scope, then the matching and quoting rules. It is one dense paragraph and the long topic enumeration is partly expendable, but nearly every sentence carries operational guidance.

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, yet the description explains the return shape (up to three ranked candidates with their source pages, plus a found flag) and the quoting rule, so an agent knows exactly how to interpret and use the result.

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%, so the baseline applies, but the description still adds meaning: lang sets the answer language with English as fallback where no translation exists, and the question should preferably be English or Russian.

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 ('Published answers of Vargov®Design') and enumerates the covered topics (ordering, delivery, warranty, BIM/IFC, etc.), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_composition or configurator_link.

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 conditions: use for published brand answers, quote only if the candidate actually answers, and fall back to contact links for a manager when nothing fits. It also notes English/Russian questions work best, but never names a sibling tool as the alternative.

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