Датасет целиком

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the return shape ('объект объектов', keyed by record ID) and the presence of technical fields __id__/__link_to_card__. It stops short of noting size/pagination concerns for a full-dataset fetch, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition, then scope, then return shape, then the sibling hand-off — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and a slightly long single block, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (object keyed by record ID) and example fields. Parameters are covered by the schema, and the scoping constraint plus sibling routing make this complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (dataset_id, params) are documented in the schema with the same seaf.company.ds.people example. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete retrieval action on a named object: 'нужен именованный датасет представлений ЦЕЛИКОМ' with an example (seaf.company.ds.people) and the field types returned. It explicitly scopes to seaf.company.ds.* and distinguishes itself from query_dataset, so an agent can tell exactly what this returns vs. the sibling.

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?

Opens with 'Когда вызывать' and states the selecting condition (you need the whole named dataset, only seaf.company.ds.*), then names the alternative: 'Для выборок по датасету и служебных seaf.ds.* — query_dataset'. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are given explicitly.

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