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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the price guide lives inside contact terms, the exact sum arrives in the first reply, the guide is not a public offer, and nothing is booked or sent. That is real behavioral disclosure, though return-format specifics are left to the output schema.

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 core purpose and topic list are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the pricing caveat placed after. It is somewhat dense (prepayment, timing, revisions, pricing floor, offer disclaimer) but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies scope, topics, and pricing caveats, leaving only sibling routing unstated. Adequate for a single-enum read tool, short of complete.

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% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description notes that 'contact also returns the brief and working terms,' but that detail is already present in the schema's enum description, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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: 'Read published facts about Egor Sevastyanov... profile, shooting services, exact FAQ answers, or contact.' This maps cleanly onto the topic enum, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_portfolio or check_shooting_fit, which keeps it at a 4.

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 by the enumerated topics and by 'Nothing is booked or sent,' which hints that booking/action tools are elsewhere. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule is given, so the agent must infer the boundary with draft_brief or check_shooting_fit.

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