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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world annotations, the description adds meaningful caveats: results are hints only, not legal conclusions, and the service does not check text against the normative dictionaries approved by Government order No. 1102-р. It also reveals the shape of output (candidate anglicisms plus Russian replacements), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose, effective date, description of findings, and the legal disclaimer are front-loaded and well ordered. It is somewhat long because the Russian statement is then restated in compressed English, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations already supplied, the description covers everything needed: what it flags, examples, the replacement suggestions, and the limits of its authority. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the 'Nike, Яндекс Маркет' example for allow. The description implies text is what gets scanned but adds no format, length, or override semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it finds Latin-script words, jargon anglicisms (дедлайн, кэшбэк, сейл) and common loanwords in Russian consumer-facing text, with Russian replacement suggestions. The scope is unambiguous, though it never positions itself relative to plausible siblings like transliterate or typograph.

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?

Concrete usage context is given: preparing text for consumers (site, product card, newsletter, advertising, signage) under the Russian-language rules effective 1 March 2026. It also sets a boundary by declaring it is an automatic hint and not a legal opinion, but offers no explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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