Список визиток

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 two retrieval modes and nothing about pagination, result caps, or how campaign-based lookup behaves. Given the lower bar set by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and both retrieval modes with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 four optional parameters fully documented in the schema and clear annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential access paths. It omits pagination framing and typical result shape, but the schema and annotations carry enough that an agent can call it correctly.

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 limit, offset, vcard_ids, and campaign_ids each documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of IDs and campaign-linked ads adds marginal framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (получить/найти) and resource (виртуальные визитки), and clearly distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings add_vcard and delete_vcards by being a read/list operation. It also names the two distinct retrieval paths (by ID vs. via campaign ads), which helps disambiguate intent.

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 sentence implies the two usage modes — pass IDs directly or select campaigns whose ads carry the vCards — which maps loosely to the vcard_ids and campaign_ids parameters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer one path over the other, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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