user_otp_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 discloses nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no pagination or default behavior for limit/offset, and no description of what the returned OTP status contains. The only implicit signal is the HTTP GET verb.

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 text is short but not usefully structured prose: it is a raw spec dump ("Тег: OTP", "Спека: user") whose metadata elements add nothing to tool selection. Front-loading the path is the only structural merit.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides none of the context needed (what OTP status means, return shape, permissions, pagination semantics). It is effectively an autogenerated endpoint stub and is inadequate as an agent-facing definition.

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% (limit, offset, user_id all documented inline), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters or the admin-on-behalf-of semantics of user_id.

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 reduces to the HTTP method and path ("GET /user/otp") plus a restatement of the name via "Статус OTP". It conveys that this reads OTP status, but does not distinguish it from siblings like user_otp_post, user_otp_put, user_otp_delete, or user_otp_setup_post beyond the raw verb.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as user_otp_setup_post or user_otp_delete. The agent must infer the retrieval/filtering context entirely from the path.

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