Контракты (ученик ↔ преподаватель)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating it exposes remaining paid hours and balance status, which is useful for understanding the return data. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, default sorting, or open-world data completeness, so it falls short of rich disclosure.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first front-loads the core meaning with a colon and list of key attributes; the second adds a practical use case. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

While the core domain is clear, the description lacks essential details for a 5-parameter list tool with no output schema. It does not describe the response shape, how status filtering works, or provide usage examples. The annotations cover read-only safety, but the description is not complete enough on its own.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the five parameters (page, limit, status, student_id, teacher_id). It mentions domain concepts like rates and hours, but these are not mapped to filter parameters, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as contracts linking students and teachers, with subject, rates, and remaining paid hours. The mention of balance depletion ('у кого кончаются деньги') differentiates it from sibling list tools by highlighting its unique purpose, making the tool's role 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 implicitly suggests when to use the tool ('Именно здесь видно, у кого кончаются деньги на балансе'), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. The use case is clear but there is no direct comparison to siblings like list_payments or finance_report.

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