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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds detailed behavioral context: public profile, aggregated data, quota limits, and error response format. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence lists contents, second provides use case and quota info. Front-loaded with key verb and resource.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately covers return content and error case. For a simple profile tool with one parameter, this is largely complete. Lacks exact field structure but acceptable.

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% for the single parameter 'inn'. Description adds only 'по ИНН' and that it's public, but no additional value beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Публичный профиль заказчика'), resource (by INN), and lists contents (name, region, procurement stats, OKPD2 structure, suppliers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a use case ('quick assessment of who this is and how much they buy').

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?

Description explicitly states when to use ('для быстрой оценки...'), includes quota details and error behavior. Does not explicitly mention when NOT to use or compare to siblings, but context is clear enough.

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