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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that — that an HTML variant with   is available — but says nothing about input size limits, whether the original text is preserved, or determinism, leaving the annotation to carry the rest.

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 list of typography rules is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the HTML note and the English gloss trailing. The bilingual restatement ('Russian typography: quotes, dashes, non-breaking spaces') is largely redundant with the preceding Russian text, a minor bit of waste.

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 only two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the definition covers enough. There is no output schema, but the description states what the output is (typographically corrected text, optionally with  ), so nothing essential is left dangling.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes the 'html — дополнительно вернуть вариант с  ' behavior already stated in the schema and adds no new syntax or format detail for the 'text' parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Приводит русский текст к типографским правилам') and then enumerates the concrete transformations performed (guillemets, nested quotes, em dash, ellipsis, numeric ranges, non-breaking spaces). This is distinct from every sibling (transliterate, amount_in_words, decline_name), so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 description of what gets corrected, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisite statement (e.g. input must be Russian), and no mention of alternative tools for text processing. An agent can infer the context but must do so itself.

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