Список сегментов

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the full response structure, including segment fields, statuses, type-specific fields, pagination parameters, default limit, and the pixel filter. It also warns that there is no separate get endpoint, adding valuable behavioral context not covered by 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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives a structured explanation of the response, pagination, and filtering in three additional sentences. Every sentence adds value, with 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 that there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the response format, fields, statuses, and type-specific attributes. It also covers pagination behavior and a non-obvious caveat (no single-segment fetch method). This makes the tool's behavior clear and complete for an agent.

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 already covers all three parameters (limit, offset, pixel) with descriptive comments, and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds only a brief restatement of pagination and the pixel filter, which does not go beyond the schema's explicit parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states 'Возвращает список сегментов Яндекс Аудиторий, доступных пользователю' with an explicit list of segment types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create/upload/delete segments. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous, and it also notes the absence of a single-segment method, reinforcing its purpose.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: not only for listing all segments but also as the sole way to fetch a single segment ('Отдельного метода получения одного сегмента в API нет — фильтруйте этот список по id'). This is a clear alternative usage instruction, equivalent to the get_calls example.

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