Статус подключения к Вебмастеру

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). It explicitly states that the tool 'does not send anything to the network' and 'does not show the token itself', which is crucial for an auth-related tool. It also explains what it does show, giving full transparency about its effects.

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 is compact and front-loaded: it states the primary purpose first, adds key specifics (what it shows, what it doesn't show), and ends with a clear usage trigger. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Excellent structure for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the user would learn from calling it: connection status, token source, expiry, file location, and safety caveats. There is no ambiguity about what the tool returns or its side effects. Complete for its intended diagnostic purpose.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. It focuses on what the tool reports, which is appropriate. No parameter-related guidance needed.

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 clearly states the action: 'shows whether Yandex Webmaster is connected' and specifies the exact details it covers (token presence, source, expiry, file location). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (start_login, finish_login, logout) by focusing on status rather than auth actions, and the specific details make it unambiguous.

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 says to call this when Webmaster tools report that the connection is not configured ('Вызовите это, если инструменты Вебмастера отвечают, что подключение не настроено'). This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. That's sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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