Визитки

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds the data-model context that ids come from the VCardId field of ads, but discloses no further behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid ids, pagination behavior, or response semantics.

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 short sentences with no filler — the first states the core action and resource, the second adds the essential sourcing context. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the 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?

For a simple read-only tool with three fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete. The VCardId hint connects it to the wider ad data model; the only gap is that the return shape is never mentioned, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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%, so ids, limit, and offset are each already documented in the schema. The description adds the VCardId sourcing hint for the ids parameter, a small increment above the schema, which matches the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 'читает' (reads) with a clear resource — virtual business cards — and a specific access method (by id). The read semantics and resource clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_vcard and delete_vcards, whose names alone signal different operations.

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 gives practical usage context: the API requires ids, and the agent is told they can be sourced from the VCardId field of ads, which directs the agent on where to obtain inputs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a simple read-by-id tool the sourcing hint provides clear usage direction.

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