menu__get_stop_lists_by_organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that this is a wrapper with no throttling of its own, that it consumes the quota of the underlying API method, and advising to cache results. This behavioral context goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations, giving the agent useful operational expectations.

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: a one-line purpose, then an Args section, a Returns section, and a behavioral note. Everything is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. The quota/caching note is appended after the core info, keeping the primary purpose visible. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description covers the purpose, parameter, return behavior, and a practical usage note (caching). It does not describe the structure of stop-lists, but given no output schema exists and the operation is simple, that is not a critical omission. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'organization_id: ID организации (str или UUID)' – clearly stating it's the organization's ID and allowed types. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type union. While not exhaustive (e.g., no guidance on lookup), it fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions for this single parameter.

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 opens with 'Get stop-lists for an organization', a specific verb+resource with a clear scope (by organization). This distinguishes it from the sibling menu__get_stop_lists, which presumably fetches stop-lists without an organization filter. The wording is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 when you have an organization_id, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like menu__get_stop_lists or menu__check_products_in_stop_list. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to another sibling. The 'for an organization' phrasing gives an implied usage condition, but nothing more.

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