Наборы быстрых ссылок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that ids are required and can be sourced from the SitelinkSetId field of ads, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on pagination (though the schema covers limit/offset) or what the response contains, so the added value over annotations is modest.

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 consists of two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary function, the second provides essential guidance on where to obtain identifiers. It is compact and free of fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly more tied to the tool's purpose. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (read-only, 3 documented params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete for an agent to decide when to call it. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and helpful annotations, the missing details (e.g., return format) are not critical. There's minor ambiguity in whether pagination behavior is fully clear, but that's addressed by the limit/offset parameters.

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%, with all three parameters (ids, limit, offset) described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it takes the baseline score of 3 without adding extra detail.

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 the verb 'Читает' (reads) with a clear resource, 'наборы быстрых ссылок по id' (sitelinks sets by id), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_sitelinks_set or delete_sitelinks. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the read-scope is obvious and the source of IDs ('поле SitelinkSetId объявлений') adds precision. The title 'Наборы быстрых ссылок' is a natural noun phrase, but the description removes ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating that it reads by id and that the API requires ids from SitelinkSetId, which is helpful prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from alternatives (e.g., when to use get_sitelinks vs. create/delete) or state any exclusions. The contextual hint about where to find ids is useful but not a full when-to-use explanation.

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