terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups_by_organization

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool is a wrapper with no own throttling, consumes quota of the underlying API method, and recommends caching the result. This adds useful operational behavior not present in the structured 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, and the Args/Returns structure is recognizable. However, there is a run-on sentence ('...терминальных групп Это...') with missing punctuation, which slightly hurts readability.

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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return type, and an important caching caveat. It is reasonably complete; only minor details like pagination or empty results are absent.

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 description merely restates the parameter name and its type ('organization_id: ID организации (str или UUID)'), which duplicates the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it adds no deeper semantics such as where to obtain the ID or how it relates to other tools.

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 a clear action ('Получить терминальные группы') and a specific scope ('для организации'), which matches the tool name and helps distinguish it from the broader get_terminal_groups sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups or employees__get_terminal_groups_of_employee. The only additional instruction is about caching and quota, which is operational advice rather than tool-selection guidance.

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