user_autopayment_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, yet it only echoes the HTTP method. It does not state that this is a safe read or disclose auth requirements, the meaning of user_id impersonation, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 several tokens are low-value generator metadata ("Тег: Пользователи", "Спека: user") and the content is split across two languages. The endpoint and the actual purpose are front-loaded, which helps, but the metadata is noise for an agent.

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 simple read tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the minimum is present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered read-only safety and any auth/impersonation behavior for user_id, which it omits.

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 limit, offset, and user_id are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about these parameters, not even clarifying the admin-acts-on-behalf-of semantics of user_id beyond the schema text.

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 Russian line "Список автоплатежей пользователя" states a clear verb (list) and resource (user autopayments), and the GET endpoint is named. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling user_autopayment_delete, though it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly. Purpose is clear but partially buried in machine-generated metadata (Tag/Spec).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_autopayment_delete or the related user_pay_* tools. No prerequisites, no auth or scoping notes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the endpoint name.

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