Список фидов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (sources, processing statuses, related campaigns), but says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or result limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though minimal enough that it leaves room for additional usage context.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description's brief enumeration of returned fields is thin and pagination behavior (offset/LimitedBy) is left unaddressed.

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 feed_ids are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or syntax, matching the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Получить') and resource ('товарные фиды') and enumerates what it returns (sources, processing statuses, related campaigns). No sibling tool covers feeds, so there is no alternative to disambiguate from, but the scope is clear.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions. It only describes output content, leaving the agent to infer that this is the unfiltered account-level feed listing on its own.

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