Справочник часовых поясов

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 only the consumer context (set_time_targeting, create_campaign) and the filter capability; it does not cover the 50-item default limit behavior, pagination, or result size, which would be valuable given the maximum of 500.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the filter capability. Efficient, though the consumer list could be integrated more tightly and the sentence stops short of stating the retrieval action.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the essentials (resource, filter, consumers) are present. But the description omits the default limit of 50 and the maximum of 500, which materially affect how an agent should call it, and does not clarify its relationship to get_regions.

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%, with both limit (default 50, max 500) and search (substring, case-insensitive, examples) fully documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the filter capability ('Фильтр по коду или названию') without adding format or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource (time zone reference list) and its consumers (set_time_targeting, create_campaign), which helps position it against siblings like get_regions. However, it describes itself as a 'справочник' (reference/directory) rather than clearly stating the verb (list/retrieve), leaving the action implicit.

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?

Naming set_time_targeting and create_campaign implies this is a lookup to support those operations, giving useful context. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of the read-only nature in prose, and no differentiation from get_regions, which is a closely related sibling.

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