user_auth_passkey_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'GET' verb weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether it consumes/creates a challenge, whether it is idempotent, or what pagination (limit/offset) actually applies to.

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?

It is short, but the space is spent on auto-generated metadata ('Тег', 'Спека') rather than front-loaded purpose or usage. Minimal waste, minimal value.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters whose meaning (especially why a public-auth read takes limit/offset/user_id) is unexplained, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call this over its siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, user_id). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a verb (GET / Получить) with a resource (параметры публичной аутентификации Passkey), so the general intent is decipherable. However it is padded with boilerplate ('Тег: Passkey Аутентификация', 'Спека: user') and does not distinguish this /user/auth/passkey endpoint from the many near-identical siblings (user_passkey_get, user_auth_post, user_password_auth_get), leaving real ambiguity about which passkey/auth read it is.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all — just an HTTP path and tags. Given a sibling list crowded with passkey and auth tools, the absence of any routing hint is a notable gap.

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