Ploshadkin — event venues in Russia

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the payload contents and, notably, that contact data is deliberately withheld — a limitation the agent could not infer from structured fields. It does not mention rate limits or whether url/slug must match an existing entry, keeping it short of a 5.

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: purpose first, then the routing caveat. The field enumeration is long but each item is a distinct content guarantee, so it broadly earns its place; still, the list could have been trimmed to the most decision-relevant fields.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by enumerating the card contents and explicitly stating what is absent (contacts). Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps remain around input precedence.

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%: the schema already explains that url is a ploshadkin.ru card link and slug comes from search_venues. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. whether slug or url takes precedence), so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Подробная карточка площадки') and enumerates exactly what the card contains: halls, seating capacity, indicative price, cuisine, parking, accommodation, photos. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling request_quote, so an agent can distinguish it from the other venue-related tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative to use instead: contacts are not returned, so for a free date and estimate use request_quote. That is a when-not/alternative pair, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned data contents and examples, but does not describe pagination, authentication, or other operational behavior, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs in the returned fields, tag categories, examples, and intended usage without filler. Every part contributes useful context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned and how it is used. It could be slightly more explicit about exhaustive enumeration or lack of arguments, but the schema and annotations cover those gaps.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly does not introduce any.

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 identifies the resources clearly: venue categories (with slug, name, venue count, link) and tags for occasions and features. It also ties them to search_venues filters, which helps distinguish the tool from siblings, though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or name alternative tools.

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 phrase 'для фильтров search_venues' gives a clear use context: this tool supplies filter values for search_venues. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond output fields: no note on ordering, completeness, or whether the list is static, so there is little value beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload fields. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and with zero input parameters there is nothing else an agent needs in order to call it. Minor gaps remain around list size or ordering, but the definition is adequate for this simple read-only enumerator.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 names a specific resource (catalog cities) and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, venue count, link), which is enough for an agent to recognize this as the flat city-listing tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_categories or search_venues, but the resource 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?

There is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry point for enumerating cities, with no guidance on how it relates to search_venues or request_quote.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the agency calls back within one working day and there is a hard limit of 3 requests per day (a rate constraint no annotation expresses), plus a personal-data consent requirement. It does not explain the idempotentHint=true semantics (retry safety), which is the one behavioral trait left implicit.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the required inputs, then the callback expectation and rate limit. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: prerequisites (name, phone, consent), turnaround time, and the per-day cap. What it omits — what the confirmation/response contains — is minor since a callback-based flow has little to return.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already carries field-level meaning; baseline is 3. The description reinforces that name and phone are the two required inputs and that the request may target one venue or a selection, but adds no format or syntax 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?

States a specific verb+resource (send a request to the agency to check a venue's availability and receive a quote), including both variants: a single venue or a curated selection. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (search_venues, get_venue, list_*), which only look things up.

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?

Gives clear context for use — availability check plus quote — and the prerequisite that name and phone must be collected with the user's consent before sending. It references the venue slug coming from search_venues in the schema but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over just browsing with search_venues.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a hard cap of 10 cards per call and the result ordering (catalog-recommended, then popularity), which the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the return shape, then ordering, then the sibling cross-reference — a logical order with no filler. The long enumeration of card fields is justified given there is no output schema, though it is the densest part of the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing returns: card count cap and the exact fields returned. Combined with fully documented parameters and the get_venue pointer, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the 9 parameters is well documented in the schema (including examples, bounds and the note that venues without a price still match price_max). The description only adds the generic phrase 'по словам и фильтрам' and does not deepen any individual parameter's meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (поиск по каталогу Площадкин по словам и фильтрам) and enumerates what a result card contains. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_venue (details) and the list_* catalog tools referenced in the schema, so an agent can identify its role without opening a sibling.

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?

Gives clear routing context: this is the search/listing entry point and 'Подробности — get_venue' directs the agent to the sibling for full detail. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., versus browsing list_cities/list_categories directly), so it falls short of a full 5.

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