Начать подключение Аудиторий

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned link is for OAuth, the code expires in 10 minutes, and only this server can exchange the code, which is a useful security disclosure. It does not contradict the annotations, but it could mention what happens if the user is already authenticated or the outcome of the step.

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 moderately sized with six sentences, each contributing useful information: purpose, return value, user instructions, handoff to finish_login, code validity, and security. It is slightly verbose but not padded, and the key message (first step, returns OAuth link) is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the return value, the required user actions, the next step, and the code's validity and security. It does not describe the exact format of the returned link or edge cases, but these are not critical for invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters is a baseline 4; the description has no parameter details to add, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 this is the first step of connecting Yandex Audiences and that it returns a link to the Yandex OAuth page, using a specific verb ('start' / 'Первый шаг') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming finish_login as the next step and noting that no config changes or restart are required.

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 gives explicit usage context: it is the first step, and after receiving the confirmation code the agent must pass it to finish_login. This directly indicates when to use this tool versus the sibling completion step, and the user instructions clarify the flow. It effectively communicates the when and the handoff.

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