Оценки пробных уроков

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, making the read-only nature known. The description adds value by disclosing that transcriptions are not available due to personal data, and specifies that the tool provides mechanical and semantic metrics. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not cover pagination or exact output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a key limitation. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative about output and parameters.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify return format. It states the tool allows comparing teachers and lists metric types, but does not describe the structure (e.g., per-teacher scores, aggregation) or mention pagination via 'limit'. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 adds no information about the 'limit' parameter, which lacks a schema description. The 'teacher_id' is described in schema (id преподавателя), but the description does not clarify how to use it. With 50% schema coverage and zero parameter guidance in the description, the agent lacks clarity on the limit parameter's purpose.

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 states the tool lists AI assessments of trial lessons with mechanical and semantic metrics from call transcriptions, and explicitly mentions it allows comparing teachers by trial quality. It distinguishes from siblings like list_lessons by focusing on scores rather than lesson details.

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 implies usage for comparing teachers' trial lesson quality but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It does mention a limitation (transcriptions unavailable) but no exclusions or alternative tool suggestions.

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