explain_marking_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Free' and indicates it's a reference tool, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like read-only, auth needs, or rate limits. The term 'Справка' (reference) suggests non-destructive behavior, but transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence plus the word 'Free' ('Бесплатно'), front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured.

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 simple structure (one parameter, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's function adequately without needing to detail output since output schema exists. Minor room for improvement in listing exact topics, but the parameter description already covers them.

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 the input schema already documents the 'topic' parameter with examples (erid, ord, etc.). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Reference on advertising marking requirements...') clearly states the tool explains advertising marking requirements, including key concepts (erid/ORD/ERIR), responsibilities, deadlines, and fines. It distinguishes from sibling tools (audit, verification) by being explanatory rather than auditing.

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 usage context: use this tool for explanations on marking requirements. The sibling tool names (audit, check compliance, verify) contrast with this explanatory tool, so context for when to use is clear. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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