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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: API key is optional, a public mode exists with a 2-questions-per-hour-per-IP rate limit, and the answer is delivered out-of-band to the supplied contacts. It still does not say what happens on rate-limit failure or whether a request record is created, but the rate limit and delivery channel are genuinely useful disclosures.

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?

Two dense sentences, no filler: purpose first, then operational constraints, then the parameter instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers auth mode, rate limit, and delivery. The one incomplete area is contact-field requirements, since only 'question' is marked required in the schema and the description implies contacts are needed without stating the rule.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it does: it marks api_key as optional and explains that name plus phone/e-mail are the delivery channels. It stops short of saying whether at least one contact field is required or what format is expected, leaving a gap across the 5 params.

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 ("Задать вопрос менеджеру завода") and immediately scopes it with example topics (non-standard configuration, special conditions, deadlines, leasing), which separates it from get_faq and submit_lead without naming them.

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 when-to-use context through the enumerated topic list (non-standard build, special terms, lead times, leasing). It does not explicitly exclude the FAQ tool or say when to prefer submit_lead, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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