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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotent, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior: requisites are validated against checksums, and the returned link expires after 24 hours. It does not say what happens on a failed checksum validation or whether files persist anywhere, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action and format, then a single dense sentence listing document sections. The long enumeration is informative rather than padded, though a briefer phrasing could have carried the same meaning.

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 an 11-parameter generator with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return information: links to PDF and/or DOCX and the 24-hour validity window, plus the validation behavior. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including nested seller/buyer/item fields is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description corroborates the semantic content (VAT, amount in words, line-item table) but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema.

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 (Формирует/Generates) plus the exact resource: a Russian services acceptance act (акт оказанных услуг) as PDF/DOCX. It also enumerates the document's substantive sections (parties, basis, line items, totals, VAT, amount in words, signature block), making the artifact unambiguous versus a plain invoice.

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?

No statement of when to pick this over the sibling make_invoice, nor any prerequisites (e.g. run validate_requisites first, or that requisites are auto-checked). Usage must be inferred from the name and title alone.

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