terminal_groups__check_terminal_groups_availability

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: an explicit MCP-server throttle limit (max 10 requests per 60 seconds) and a caching recommendation, which is material behavioral information for an agent deciding how often to call.

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-organized: purpose first, then Args/Returns, then ID sourcing, then throttling. Minor formatting issues exist — the run-on 'Ответ о доступности терминальных групп Где взять ID:' lacks punctuation — but every sentence carries functional information and the critical constraints are front-loaded.

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 availability-check tool with one top-level parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, how to source every input ID, and a rate limit with caching advice. It does not describe the response shape, but given no output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the gaps are minor.

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 top-level schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping each nested request field to a source sibling tool (organizationIds from organizations__get_organizations, terminalGroupIds from terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups). However, it otherwise just restates the type name ('Параметры запроса TerminalGroupsIsAliveRequest') without explaining field semantics, which the nested schema descriptions already cover.

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 a specific verb+resource statement: 'Проверить доступность терминальных групп' (check availability of terminal groups). This clearly distinguishes an availability check from the sibling get_* tools like terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups, though it never explicitly names them.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups or banquets__get_reserve_terminal_groups. It does provide ID-provenance tips (organizationId → organizations__get_organizations, terminalGroupIds → terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups), but those help parameter filling, not tool selection.

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