Случайный анекдот

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only/no side effects, warns that repeated calls with the same argument are non-deterministic, and describes the empty-category fallback string «Анекдот не найден». It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the 18+ inclusion can be suppressed, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then conditional logic, safety, non-determinism, and the empty-result case – every sentence carries real information. Slightly dense in a single block but no wasted clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does explain the return (one random record, or the literal fallback text). It is a bit vague about the shape/fields of the returned record (id, text, category, tags) and about the 18+ flag, which is the main remaining gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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%, and the parameter's own description already explains the category filter and the default of any category including 18+. The description restates this rather than adding format or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns one random record (joke/story/aphorism) from the РжуНеМогу database. The randomness and single-item scope immediately distinguish it from siblings like get_jokes_by_category and search_jokes, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the two usage modes: with categoryId it samples only that category, without it samples all published records including 18+. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. 'for a specific joke use get_joke_by_id'), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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