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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as payment processing ($0.05 USDC is mentioned but not explained), whether it is a read-only operation, what counts as a 'search', how pagination/limits are handled, or potential side effects like billing. The description is largely a pricing/package statement with no behavioral transparency.

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 description is very short (one line), which is concise, but it is not well-structured: it jumps between Russian and English, and the key information (purpose, usage, parameters) is missing. It earns credit for brevity but fails to provide necessary substance.

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?

The tool has a complex research package (3 searches, up to 10 pages, payment), but the description only states the package contents and price. It lacks any details about inputs, expected output format beyond 'Markdown', execution flow, or error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to use this tool 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters ('args' and 'extra') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'args' or 'extra' contain, what fields are expected, or how they map to the research package. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema's generic names.

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 'Research-пакет deep: 3 поиска + до 10 страниц в Markdown одним платежом. $0.05 USDC' mixes Russian and English, and focuses on package pricing and outputs (3 searches, up to 10 pages in Markdown) without a clear verb+resource statement. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ru_research' (likely a lighter version) or 'ru_search', and the title is null.

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 description implies usage for deep research (package of 3 searches + up to 10 pages), but does not specify when to choose this over 'ru_research' (standard), 'ru_search', or 'inn_lookup'. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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