Tier1.shop

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: no account is created ('без создания аккаунта'), the user must confirm email via a link ('Пользователь обязательно сам подтверждает email по ссылке из письма'), and Telegram can be linked later ('Telegram можно привязать позже'). These details add meaningful context about side effects and process flow that annotations do not provide.

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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary repetition and includes essential behavioral caveats in the second sentence, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a registration initiation tool, covering the creation of a request, email confirmation requirement, and optional Telegram linking. Given the presence of an output schema to explain return values, the description is mostly complete, though it could mention the follow-up tool (check_registration) for checking status; this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters (email, locale, telegram_username). It relies entirely on the input schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage; the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Создаёт запрос регистрации без создания аккаунта' (creates a registration request without creating an account), distinguishing it from a full account creation. It also differentiates from the sibling 'check_registration' by emphasizing the initiation of the process rather than status checking.

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 when to use the tool (as the initial step of registration) by stating it creates a request, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use/alternatives guidance or mention the sibling tool 'check_registration' for verifying status. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that execution is sequential and that the tool does not submit orders, which is valuable. It does not disclose overwrite/failure behavior or permissions, but it does not contradict 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a crucial side-effect exclusion. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the no-submit side effect, and the schema plus output schema handle parameter and return-value details. However, it leaves ambiguity about how links map to existing editable rows, whether rows are matched or created, and failure/idempotency behavior—significant for a bulk mutation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming URL, anchors, surrounding text, and schedule, which maps to the links object's fields. It does not explain order_id or idempotency_key semantics, and it omits the 'type' field, leaving the schema to carry those details.

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 clearly states it 'sequentially fills editable order rows with URLs, anchors, surrounding text, and schedule' and explicitly notes it does not submit them ('Не отправляет их в работу'). This distinguishes the tool from submit_order and submit_link siblings and conveys the bulk draft-editing scope.

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 'not sending them to work' line implies this tool is for draft preparation rather than submission, which is a useful context cue. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention update_link_draft as the single-link alternative.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'подсказывает следующий шаг' (suggests the next step), which is not covered by annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, output schema provided, annotations cover safety), the description adequately covers the main behavior and next-step guidance. The main gap is parameter semantics, but the overall context is sufficiently complete for a status-check 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or origin of 'request_id' and 'status_token' beyond implying they relate to a previously started registration. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Проверяет состояние' = checks status) on a specific resource ('ранее начатой регистрации' = previously started registration), and mentions it suggests the next step. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'begin_registration'.

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 'ранее начатой регистрации' implies this tool is used after starting a registration, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (profile and verification status) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It does not list return fields, but that is the output schema's job.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics; the baseline for 0 params 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('shows') and identifies the resource (profile of the connected client) plus the specific aspect (email/Telegram confirmation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balances or get_order, which target different resources.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Its purpose is clear from the name and content, but the usage context is only implied.

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 destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it shows wallets and unused services, but does not disclose further behavioral details like auth requirements or response specifics, which is acceptable given 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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys what the tool shows and the geographic scope, earning high marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the essential elements (wallets, unused services, geo scope), and the output schema handles return details, making the description sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'RU or international cabinet,' which clarifies the meaning of the 'geo' parameter (ru/intl/all). This adds semantic value beyond the bare enum, though it could be more explicit.

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 clearly states the verb 'shows' and the resource: money wallets (₽/$) and unused services. It also specifies the scope (RU or international cabinet), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on orders, registrations, or links.

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 context is clear: this tool is for checking balances. While no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned, the purpose is self-evident and the sibling tools are distinct, so no exclusions are needed.

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 indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds context about ownership scoping ('belonging to the client') and indicates the return includes links, which goes beyond 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality and adds a key scoping detail, though it omits error behavior or not-found handling.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter semantics. It does not explain that order_id is required or how it relates to the order being returned. The schema itself has clear constraints, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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' (returns) and clearly identifies the resource as a single order belonging to the client, plus its links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders, which handles multiple orders.

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 for retrieving one order and its links but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_orders. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'Домены намеренно анонимизированы до покупки' (domains are intentionally anonymized until purchase), which is beyond the annotations and sets user expectations. 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a key caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core output (platforms, metrics, languages, topics, price, free slots) and the important anonymization note. With zero parameters and a simple list-type operation, this is complete enough, though it omits pagination/ordering details which are likely handled by the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, and the empty schema provides full coverage. The description adds context about the returned content, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 ('Возвращает') and resource ('доступные международные iGaming-площадки') with detailed attributes (metrics, languages, topics, price, free slots). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_links and list_tariffs.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for iGaming donor data, with no exclusions or explicit alternatives. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when-not-to-use.

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 and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces 'Changes nothing.' It adds that the tool searches by geography, status, and type, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No further details like pagination behavior or auth requirements are provided, but the read-only nature is well-covered.

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 no filler. Every phrase ('belonging to the client,' 'by geography, status, and type,' 'changes nothing') carries meaning.

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 tool with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is under-specified. It fails to explain the meaning of status and link_type, the behavior of pagination, or how to choose between this and sibling tools. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns but not parameter or usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'geography, status, and type' without detailing the valid values or semantics for status and link_type. It also omits the pagination parameters page and per_page, leaving users to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Searches for links belonging to the client by geography, status, and type.' This uses a specific verb (searches) and resource (client's links), and the filter criteria distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like submit_link and update_link_draft.

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 provides context that this is a read-only search operation for client links with filtering, and explicitly states 'Changes nothing,' implying use for querying rather than modifying. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this compared to alternatives like submit_link or update_link_draft, nor does it state exclusions.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the result including progress by links and reiterates that it changes nothing, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 stating the core function plus a short reassurance that it changes nothing. It is succinct, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary wording.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and safety, and an output schema exists that presumably documents return values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on pagination (page/per_page) and differentiation from get_order, making it slightly incomplete for a list 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the geo, page, or per_page parameters. It leaves their meaning to inference from names and defaults, which is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns customer orders with progress by links, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('customer orders'), distinguishing it from get_order or mutation tools like submit_order.

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 for retrieving a list of customer orders, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternatives like get_order, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No explicit guidance is provided.

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 destructiveHint, so the description's 'returns' is consistent. It adds context about 'purchasable' and 'current' tariffs and specific data fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching, pagination, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and lists the key return fields. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the description mentions some return fields, the description omits the meaning of the required 'geo' parameter, which is a critical gap. An agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without understanding how to set 'geo'. This makes the description incomplete for selection and invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'geo', and the description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what 'geo' means or how it affects the results. The enum values ('ru', 'intl') offer partial clues, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool returns current purchasable tariffs with specific fields (price, currency, product_id, and exact link counts). The verb 'Возвращает' and resource 'тарифы' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle orders, links, or donors.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like list_links or list_orders, and the intended use case is only implied by the name and description rather than explicitly stated.

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?

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation), the description adds valuable context: it does not charge money and does not accept payment data. This clarifies side effects and reassures the agent that this step is only about link creation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential negative constraints with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for the tool's role, and the presence of an output schema likely documents return values. It could add a note about idempotency behavior or link expiry, but those are partially covered by annotations and the 'one-time' mention, making the description complete enough.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only implicitly covers 'confirmed' by requiring explicit confirmation of composition and price; there is no guidance for 'geo', 'items', 'links', or 'idempotency_key'. Most parameters remain unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool creates a protected one-time link to the standard Tier1.shop checkout after explicit confirmation of composition and price. This specific verb+resource combination inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_order or update_link_draft, even without naming alternatives.

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 provides a clear precondition: use only after explicit confirmation of composition and price. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the confirmation requirement and the singular scope ('one filled link'), but does not disclose deeper side effects, authorization needs, or what happens after submission.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The action is stated first, and the crucial precondition follows, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core action and precondition, but lacks parameter semantics and post-submission behavior. While an output schema exists, the description itself is not fully self-sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further assumptions.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters. The description only hints at link_id ('one filled link') and confirmed ('explicit user confirmation'), but leaves idempotency_key completely unexplained, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Sends one filled link to the webmaster.' This identifies the verb (sends), the resource (filled link), and the recipient (webmaster), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_link_draft and list_links.

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 provides a clear precondition: 'Call only after explicit user confirmation.' This gives important usage context, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or mention when NOT to use it.

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=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool sends links to webmasters and requires user confirmation, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and the added precondition improves transparency.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a clear condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool does and when to call it. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what 'ready links' means), but the overall context is adequate for a straightforward 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While the schema itself includes types and constraints (e.g., confirmed is const true), the description does not add meaning or clarify the purpose of order_id or idempotency_key beyond the schema. The description mentions 'explicit user confirmation,' which aligns with the confirmed parameter, but that is minimal compensation.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Sends all ready links of the order to webmasters.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_link, which likely handles individual links. The verb 'sends' and the resource 'all ready links of the order' make the purpose explicit and 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?

The description provides a clear condition for use: 'Call only after showing data and explicit user confirmation.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it in favor of another tool, 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.

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by describing a mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the fields affected, the ownership requirement ('принадлежащей клиенту'), the editability constraint, and the lack of submission side effect. This is substantive additional behavioral disclosure, though it does not detail error cases or reversal.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds the key non-submission behavior. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the output schema and annotations cover some aspects, the description leaves notable gaps: it does not explain the purpose of the required idempotency_key, what 'editable' means or what happens if the link is not editable, and whether the update is partial or full. Given the tool's complexity (6 params, 2 required), the description is too brief to be fully complete on its own.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names four of six parameters (url, anchor, context_text, scheduled_at) via 'URL, анкор, окружающий текст или дату', but fails to explain the required parameters link_id and idempotency_key. The idempotency_key, which is mandatory and critical for idempotent behavior, receives no mention, leaving a significant gap for agents to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the verb 'меняет' (changes) and the resource (link), and enumerates the specific fields that can be updated (URL, anchor, context text, date). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'не отправляет задачу в работу' (does not send the task to work), differentiating it from submit_link and other workflow 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'пока она редактируема' (while it is editable) and 'не отправляет задачу в работу' (does not send the task to work). This implies it is for editing drafts before submission, contrasting with submit_link. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, so it falls slightly 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.