Выплаты преподавателям

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the deal stages (draft, inwork, accepting, completed, paying, paid) which helps interpret results, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as default ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior. Since the bar is lowered by annotations, this partial addition earns a 3.

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 compact, with a direct opening that defines the resource and then a succinct enumeration of stages. It avoids fluff and front-loads the main purpose. No redundant sentences; it is appropriately sized for the content.

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?

With 5 parameters, two enums, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain the meaning of filters, pagination, or the output format. The business context (deal stages) is useful but does not fill the gaps needed to correctly call the 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?

The description does not mention any parameters, leaving q, kind, page, limit, and status unexplained. The schema covers 40% of parameters (only q and kind have descriptions). The description does not compensate for the remaining 60% and does not clarify what each parameter controls or how the stage vocabulary relates to the status enum. This is a significant 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 identifies the resource as payments to self-employed through Rocket Work deals ('Расход денег: выплаты самозанятым через сделки Рокет Ворк') and elaborates on deal stages. This makes the tool's domain clear, and the name 'list_payouts' implies the action. It is distinct from other list tools because it specifically targets payouts, though it does not explicitly state the action or contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains the stages and hints at interpretation ('Зависшие draft и inwork — это те, кто держит свои же деньги') but never states conditions like 'use this for payout queries' or 'prefer list_payments for X'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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