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

Annotations already cover the read-only and closed-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the data is verified against lex.uz (authority of the source) and the underlying corpus is in Russian, which affects how the tool should be queried. It does not discuss empty-result behavior or what happens when no query is supplied, which keeps it below the top mark.

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 core identity, then returns, then two disambiguating caveats. The long enumeration of domains is dense but each item is a genuine coverage claim, though the section list partially duplicates the schema enum and could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so concretely: rate as written (BRV or %), amount in UZS, who pays, and legal source. It leaves one gap — whether omitting 'query' returns a broad listing or something else — but otherwise an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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, but the description goes beyond it by telling the agent that a Russian-language query matches best — directly relevant to constructing the 'query' parameter — and the enumerated domain list maps onto the 'section' enum values.

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?

Names a specific resource (official state fees / gosposhlina in Uzbekistan) and enumerates the covered domains — registration, IP, courts, licences, migration, apostille, notary — so an agent can match a request against it immediately. It also explicitly contrasts itself with sibling pricing tools by stating these are state charges, not Pactum 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 line 'These are state charges, not Pactum prices' plus the enumeration of covered areas gives a clear context for selection versus get_consultation_price or get_service. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating explicit exclusions, so the routing is inferred rather than prescribed.

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