discounts__get_loyalty_manual_conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the specific ValueError condition and the throttling constraint with a caching recommendation. This meaningfully helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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: one purpose sentence, one error/source statement, and one throttling note. Every sentence adds practical value, though the error and ID-source details are packed into a single run-on section rather than cleanly structured.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, error behavior, and rate limiting. The main gaps are the lack of response-shape details and a fuller explanation of what 'manual conditions' means, but an agent can still invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that a missing organizationId raises ValueError despite the schema default null, and directs the agent to organizations__get_organizations for the correct ID. It does not fully describe the 'request' wrapper, but it adds critical parameter meaning that the schema lacks.

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 'Все ручные условия организации' names the resource but lacks an explicit verb; it essentially restates the tool name's object without defining 'manual conditions' or showing how this differs from sibling discount getters. It is not misleading, but it relies on the tool name for action clarity.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: a ValueError is raised when organizationId is missing, the ID should be sourced from organizations__get_organizations, and MCP-server throttling limits calls to 1 per 60 seconds so results should be cached. It does not discuss when to choose this tool over siblings, but for a simple getter the provided context is strong.

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