Схема типа

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: nested types are not expanded in other tool schemas and types can be enormous, which explains why this schema lookup exists. It does not disclose additional runtime behavior such as output shape or limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool returnsconcisely, and the second explains when and why it is needed. No redundant wording or filler.

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, read-only introspection tool with full parameter schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. It could mention the output format or relationship to direct_fields, but that is not essential for making the call 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 description coverage is 100%: the 'type' parameter is described with examples and 'depth' is described with a default value. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Возвращает') and a clear resource ('точный состав типа Директа'), and elaborates on what the result includes: fields, required fields, and lists. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like direct_fields or direct_catalog, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicitly states when the tool is needed: 'перед созданием и изменением объектов', and explains the reason — nested types in tool schemas are not expanded because types like CampaignAddItem are very large. It provides clear context but does not give exclusions or name alternative tools.

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