get_instruction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavior: the official GRLS export lacks instruction text, so the response will be ready=false with a reason, and the feature is tied to the Pro tariff. However, it does not clarify authentication, rate limits, or what happens outside the Pro tariff.

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 very short and every clause carries information: the absence of instruction text, the ready=false response, and the Pro tariff requirement. It is efficient, though slightly cryptic because the main verb for the tool's action is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. The description communicates the core caveat, but it lacks usage context, routing to sibling tools, and a clear statement of prerequisites beyond 'Тариф Pro'. An agent could still be unsure when this tool should be called.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully (trade name and registration number), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as whether one identifier is preferred or how they affect the ready=false response.

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 names the resource (instruction text in the GRLS export) and a concrete response trait (ready=false with reason), but it never explicitly states the tool's operation, e.g., 'returns the instruction text' or 'checks instruction availability'. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_drug_card or get_zhnvlp_price.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Тариф Pro' hints at a payment-tier precondition, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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