Объекты раздела

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: execution happens on the portal, a concrete filter example, dot-path/array semantics, and the exact response shape. It omits permission or rate-limit details, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.

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 'Когда вызывать', followed by an example, semantic notes, sibling routing, and return shape. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information, with no restatement of the name or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return object ('{section,total,offset,items}') and the natural next step ('get_entity по id из items'). With filter semantics and sibling routing also covered, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully exceeds it: dot notation for nested fields ('stakeholders.name'), array semantics ('для массивов eq/contains срабатывает на любой элемент'), boolean string formatting, and a concrete `where` example. It does not re-explain limit/offset/fields defaults, which the schema already documents.

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 specific verb and resource ('объекты раздела' with field filters and pagination) and distinguishes itself from siblings: 'find_entities' for approximate-name search, 'list_sections' when the section is unknown. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when it is the right one.

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?

Explicit 'Когда вызывать' block, plus named alternatives with the condition that selects each ('Не знаете раздел — list_sections; ищете по примерному названию — find_entities'). Nothing is left to inference about when to use it versus its siblings.

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