Список договоров

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, and the description aligns with these—no writes or deletes are implied, consistent with destructiveHint: false. The description adds value beyond the annotations by clarifying the semantic meaning of API points ('остаток недельных баллов API'—week reset) and explaining what some response fields mean (e.g., 'description (тип контрагента)', 'parentId (заполнен у дополнительных соглашений)').

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, information-dense paragraph that front-lodes the tool's purpose and response shape before covering parameters. While efficient, the long sentence is slightly run-on, and the semi-colon usage could be clearer, costing a point.

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 simple nature (a filtered list with pagination) and the rich schema, annotations, and clear description of the response structure, the description is complete. It explicitly does not detail network error handling or rate-limit behavior, but since no output schema is provided, the description's explanation of the response shape (total, items, page, limit, hasNextPage) is adequate for an agent to understand the return value.

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%, documenting all three parameters (page, limit, filter) with defaults and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description provides marginal extra context by specifying the default page size of 20 and the fact that 'filter' without parameters returns all contracts ('Без него возвращаются все договоры'), which complements rather than repeats 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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of contracts under the account, using the specific verb 'Возвращает' (returns) combined with the resource. It distinguishes itself from a potential sibling confusion by detailing its response, including a notable field 'apiPointBalance (остаток недельных баллов API)'. While it doesn't name sibling tools like list_groups or list_campaigns as alternatives, the list semantics are explicit and specific enough to be distinct.

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 on how to use the tool including the pagination range (limit 1..100, default 20, page starting from 1) and filter options ('Сузить выдачу можно через filter.ids / filter.numbers / filter.clients...'). While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X', the context of listing contracts vs. other list tools is implicit in the resource type, and the detailed filtering and pagination guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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