Контрагенты и точки

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral/data-model context beyond them: 'Точка — это юрлицо с родительской карточкой, отдельной сущности «точка» в API нет', which helps the agent interpret parent_code and returned entities.

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 short yet dense: it names the resource, the questions it answers, adds a crucial data-model clarification, and keeps front-loaded orientation with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and return semantics anyway. The main gap is the lack of any explanation of filial_code and limit, which could leave some edge use cases underspecified.

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 coverage is 50% (query and parent_code have descriptions). The description adds meaning for query (search by name/INN/code) and parent_code (show outlets of a contractor), but leaves limit and filial_code unexplained. Since coverage is moderate and description does not compensate for the unannotated parameters, a 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 states the concrete resource (legal entities/contractors and their outlets) and the query intents it answers: existence check, retrieving INN/code, and listing related outlets. It also clarifies the data model ('a point is a legal entity with a parent card'), which clearly separates it from transactional or creation siblings like smartup_orders and smartup_contractor_create.

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?

Usage context is conveyed through the example questions the tool answers: 'is there a client', 'what is their INN/code', 'what outlets do they have'. This gives implicit usage guidance but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives; for example, it could mention smartup_contractor_create for adding contractors.

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