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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds the output composition (purpose, inputs, result, limitations, link), which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid IDs or other runtime traits. This is acceptable given the annotations but not especially rich.

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 a single sentence with the core return value front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient and scannable, even though the phrase 'измеряемую ссылку' is slightly unusual.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only tool with one enumerated parameter and a provided output schema, so the description does not need to over-explain. It could have added a routing note toward list_public_tools for discovering valid IDs, but the enum and output schema cover most operational needs.

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 0% and the description never names or explains the id parameter. It only implies that the tool must be an existing one, which is a minimal validity constraint. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Возвращает') and a concrete resource: the purpose, inputs, result, limitations, and measurable link of one existing tool. This clearly identifies it as a single-tool card getter, especially versus list-like siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of list_public_tools or get_first_warehouse_day. The only implicit signal is 'одного существующего инструмента', which suggests a single known tool, but the agent must infer the selection rule on its own.

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