dictionaries__get_cancel_causes_by_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that the call consumes the quota of an underlying API method, that there is no dedicated throttling, and recommends caching the result in the dialog. This is transparent and useful for an agent planning repeated calls.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then Args and Returns, then a brief caching note. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the required parameter, and the quota/caching caveat. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the response contains a list of cancellation causes. A minor gap is not naming the generic sibling as an alternative, but overall the agent has enough to call this 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It does restate that organization_id is 'ID организации (str или UUID)', which mirrors the schema's anyOf type and format. It adds a human-readable label but no deeper meaning such as where to obtain the ID or validation constraints. For a single simple parameter this is adequate, though not rich.

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 a specific action: getting cancellation causes for an organization. The phrase 'для организации' (for organization) distinguishes this from the sibling 'dictionaries__get_cancel_causes', which likely returns all cancellation causes without organization scoping. This is a specific verb+resource combination that an agent can act on immediately.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose and the required organization_id parameter: call this when you need cancellation causes for a specific organization. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the similar 'dictionaries__get_cancel_causes' tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves the choice to inference.

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