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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating exactly what the response contains (params, examples, auth, base URL, doc link), which helps an agent judge whether it needs this tool. Missing only failure behavior (e.g., unknown slug/method).

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 compact sentences, with the inventory of returned content front-loaded and the cost/benefit note (saves context) placed last. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned items, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide to call it. Only edge-case behavior (method not found) is unaddressed, a minor gap for a simple two-parameter read.

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% and both parameters are documented with examples ("yookassa", "POST /payments"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the slug or method format, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states what a caller gets for one API method: parameters, request/response examples, auth, base URL, and a docs URL. The verb is implicit ("Один метод") rather than explicit, and it does not directly contrast with siblings like get_integration or get_scenario, but the scope (single API method for a service slug) is unambiguous.

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?

"Экономит контекст, если нужен только он" gives a clear use condition: fetch a single method when that is all that is needed, implicitly contrasting with browsing a broader catalog. It lacks an explicit negative case (e.g., use list_catalog to discover methods), so it falls short of a 5.

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