Скрыть предложение из Поиска

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

With annotations only indicating readOnlyHint=false, the description goes far beyond by disclosing the HTTP method, the ttl_in_hours maximum (720) and its error case (INVALID_TTL), the undocumented behavior of repeated hiding, the response format, the inability to list hidden offers via API, and a rate limit. No contradiction with 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, dense paragraph that packs purpose, parameter semantics, response format, a limitation, and a rate limit. Every clause adds value and the most important information is front-loaded. It is slightly run-on but still efficient and readable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the response structure ({ status: 'OK' } or { status: 'ERROR', errors: [...] }). It also covers usage context, undocumented behavior, a listing limitation, and operational limits, making it a complete guide 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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for ttl_in_hours (max 720, error, default permanent hiding, unknown repeat behavior), which elevates the value beyond the schema. feed_id and offer_id gain no extra semantic meaning from the description, but schema covers them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Скрывает одно предложение из Поиска по товарам' (hides one offer from product Search), and even gives the POST /hidden-offers endpoint. The singular 'одно' contrasts with the sibling hide_offers, and the mention of show_offers provides immediate distinction.

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 gives a concrete use case ('когда товар закончился' – when the product is out of stock) and explains that without ttl the offer stays hidden until explicitly shown via show_offers. However, it does not explicitly name hide_offers as the batch alternative, so guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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