user_passwd_reset_verify_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. It does not say whether the token is consumed or single-use, whether it expires, what a failed verification returns, or whether authentication is required — all critical for a token-verification call.

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 and front-loads the method and path, but the 'Тег: Пользователи' and 'Спека: user' lines are metadata boilerplate that add no selection value, and the functional sentence is buried after the raw path.

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 token-verification endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what verification produces (valid/invalid token, resulting state) and any side effects. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the result.

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 token, limit, offset, and user_id; the description adds no extra meaning about the required token format or the admin user_id impersonation. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 HTTP verb and path (GET /user/passwd/reset/verify) plus a specific function in Russian: verifying the user's password reset token before a password change. That is a concrete verb+resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling user_passwd_reset_verify_post.

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?

The phrase 'перед сменой пароля' implies this is a prerequisite step checked before the password change, which is useful sequencing context. However, it never names the alternative endpoint to call instead (e.g. the POST verify sibling) or states what condition selects this GET over it.

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