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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses coverage limits (Moscow/Reutov only, 21 branches, all 24/7) and what is returned (addresses, Yandex.Maps ratings, clinic_id). It does not address empty results, matching looseness, or latency, but the operational envelope is clear.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and network scope, then the input modes, then the return payload. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 lookup tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, inputs, and returns. Edge behavior — no matches, partial district names, whether lat/lon can be combined with query — is left unstated, a minor gap.

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%, with each of lat/lon/query documented and examples given, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query-vs-coordinates split but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Найти клинику сети БиоВет') and immediately adds scope: Moscow and Reutov, 21 clinics, all open 24/7. It also names the two lookup modes (district/metro/street vs coordinates), so an agent knows exactly what this tool resolves.

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 two mutually exclusive input modes are spelled out, which tells the agent how to call it. The closing phrase 'clinic_id для записи' implicitly links it to the booking flow (book_visit), providing context for when this tool precedes others, though no sibling is named explicitly and no exclusions are given.

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