Проверка токена и доступа

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals the underlying endpoint, the exact response shape, and the absence of a dedicated ping endpoint. It also explains common reasons for failure and how to resolve them, offering rich behavioral context that annotations alone 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs useful information: behavior, return shape, limitation, and troubleshooting. Every clause adds value without redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity (0 parameters), rich annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what to do on failure, making it fully sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details and instead focuses on what the tool does and returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless health check.

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 purpose: 'Диагностика подключения' (connection diagnostics) and explicitly describes the exact operation (GET /feeds-info) and expected return values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a lightweight health check rather than listing feeds or modifying data.

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 when to use the tool: it acts as a ping endpoint since 'Отдельного ping-эндпоинта в API нет' (there is no separate ping endpoint). It also gives actionable troubleshooting steps for failure cases. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 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.