Анекдот по ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it declares the read-only, side-effect-free nature ('Только чтение, без побочных эффектов') and specifies the exact fallback behavior when the ID is missing or unpublished. That not-found text is critical behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter source, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 single-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ID provenance, safety, and the not-found case. A brief note on the successful return shape (fields returned) would make it complete, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and includes the integer/positive constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds provenance for the ID value (from search_jokes or random_joke) which the schema does not state, giving it slight value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает запись юмора по её числовому ID') and clearly distinguishes from siblings (search_jokes, random_joke, get_jokes_by_category) by being a direct ID lookup. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the search/list siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs where to obtain the ID ('ID можно получить из search_jokes или random_joke'), which tells the agent when to use this tool after those alternatives. No explicit exclusions, but the dependency chain is clear.

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