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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the price is approximate and that spindle/vacuum table are considered, implying a read-only calculation rather than a mutation. It does not say what the return value looks like, whether pricing is live, or whether any configuration state changes occur.

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 short sentences deliver the tool's purpose and cost-driving factors with no filler. The first sentence frames it as a configurator and the second specifies the calculation inputs, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the core context: what it calculates, the relevant options, and that the result is approximate. It could be more complete by stating the returned price currency/units or explicitly excluding use cases such as detailed specs or comparisons.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 on parameter documentation. The description adds value by explicitly identifying spindle and vacuum table as factors in the price calculation, which tells the agent these parameters affect the result rather than just describing their schema types.

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 concrete action, 'Расчёт ориентировочной стоимости', and the object, 'станков Каменского завода', making it clear this is a price-estimation tool for machines. The mention of spindle and vacuum table differentiates it from catalog/detail siblings like search_machines and get_machine_detail, which do not calculate prices.

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?

The phrase 'онлайн-конфигуратор' and 'расчёт ориентировочной стоимости' imply this tool is for price-estimation tasks with options. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to alternatives such as get_machine_detail or compare_machines, so the guidance is only implicit.

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