dictionaries__get_discounts_by_organization

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'Это тул-обёртка: своего троттлинга нет, но вызов расходует квоту нижележащего метода API — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.' This discloses quota consumption and recommends caching, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 the core purpose stated first, followed by a brief parameter list and a practical caching note. No redundant text; each sentence 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 simple one-parameter getter with readOnlyHint annotations, the description provides the essential context: the parameter meaning, the return type (list of discounts), and the caching advice. It does not describe the discount object structure or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has one parameter with zero description coverage (0%). The description compensates by documenting the parameter in the Args section: 'organization_id: ID организации (str или UUID)', clarifying the semantic meaning beyond just the type definition.

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 states 'Получить скидки для организации' (Get discounts for an organization), which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling list includes both 'dictionaries__get_discounts' (without organization) and other per-organization tools, so the purpose is clear even though the description does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dictionaries__get_discounts' or 'discounts__get_loyalty_programs'. The description only mentions the wrapper nature and caching advice, but does not help an agent choose between sibling tools.

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