Torgi.Otkryto (torgiopen.ru)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description's enumeration of returned fields adds content context in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, or behavior when the id is invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and the source of the id, then the payload contents. Nothing is redundant or 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields compensates well for the missing return documentation. The one substantive gap is the unresolved overlap with the sibling get_lot, which an agent cannot resolve from this description.

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 the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'id лота из search'. The description repeats that provenance but adds no syntax, format, or validity detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Полный текст лота по id') and enumerates the content returned (prices, deadlines, deposit, address, organizer, conditions). However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_lot, whose name suggests the same retrieve-a-single-lot operation, leaving a real ambiguity.

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 'id из результатов search' implies the intended workflow (run search first, then fetch a lot), which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against the near-identical sibling get_lot.

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 mark it read-only and not open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the exact payload returned—prices, reduction stages, deposit, deadlines, organizer contacts, documents—which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention error/auth/rate-limit behavior, so not 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states purpose and then lists returned fields; no filler. The field enumeration is long but justified by the missing output schema, though it could be mildly structured for faster scanning.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and a rich schema, the only real gap would be return details; the description fills that by enumerating the lot card contents. Error behavior is absent but not critical for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 the single id parameter is fully documented there. The description reinforces the lookup options and adds a concrete URL pattern (torgiopen.ru/lot/…) beyond the schema's generic 'link' wording, giving minor extra meaning.

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 retrieval action on a single lot, specifying lookup by id or torgiopen URL. Enumerates the lot attributes returned (prices, deposit, organizer, documents, source link), which distinguishes it from sibling search/search_lots tools that locate lots rather than fetch a full card.

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 when an id or lot URL is available, but it never names alternatives such as search_lots for discovery or fetch, nor states exclusions. It provides adequate input context but no explicit when-to-use routing.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing that this is a safe, closed-set read. The description adds the useful scoping detail that figures reflect the date of the last snapshot and cover a 90-day window for completed-auction share, which is genuinely extra context. It does not, however, explain the freshness of the snapshot or the output structure.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (snapshot-date summary figures) followed by the specific metrics. No filler, though the list of metrics makes it slightly heavy.

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 parameter-free read-only statistics tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns and its temporal scope. Absence of an output schema would argue for a bit more on return structure, but the enumerated metrics largely compensate.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameter-free call by enumerating exactly which aggregates are returned.

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 output (aggregate catalog figures: lot counts by auction type and region, price reductions, share of completed auctions, median per-meter price) and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lot-lookup/search tools, which return individual records rather than statistics.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the tool for aggregate market numbers rather than individual lots — but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it or points to siblings. No when-not or alternatives are named.

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 establish that this is a read-only, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — the query string itself carries region, price, property type, and auction type — but says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (keyword vs semantic), limits, or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by illustrative examples; no filler. Slightly denser than needed for a single-parameter tool, but every element is useful.

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 one-parameter read-only search this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should have said what comes back (list of lots, fields, ordering). It also leaves the search_lots overlap unresolved, which matters for correct tool selection.

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 the schema itself says only «Фраза поиска», so the description earns credit for explaining that region, price, property type, and auction type are encoded inside the phrase. That is meaningful construction guidance beyond the schema, though it does not cover syntax details or how conflicting tokens are resolved.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (поиск лотов торгов имуществом в России) and clarifies the input modality as a free-form phrase, with three concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_lots, which reads like an overlapping search tool, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples show the kind of free phrase to pass, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_lots, fetch, get_lot, or market_stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Given a near-duplicate sibling name, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a hard cap of 20 results, the exact fields returned (price, region, auction form, deadline, link), and the default ordering. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, keeping it from 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?

Three sentences, all substantive, with the scope and return contract front-loaded before the default-ordering note. No filler, though the middle sentence is somewhat list-like and could be tightened.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields and the result cap. Combined with annotations covering the read-only nature and a fully documented 10-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only cross-parameter interaction guidance is missing.

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 5 of 10 parameters are enums, so the schema already documents every field, including defaults for 'sort' and 'limit'. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g. combining query with region/channel) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Ищет лоты в каталоге торгов имуществом в России') and enumerates the domains covered (bankruptcy, state property, arrested/collateral, commercial). It also names the returned fields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools 'search' or 'get_lot', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the default sort (nearest bid deadline) hints at the primary browse use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against 'search', 'get_lot', or 'market_stats'. Nothing tells the agent when this catalog search is the wrong choice.

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