Майстер FAQ — hotline.finance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the interactive flow, the list display, the user choice capture, the relevant FAQ return, and the fallback hint. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple tool name.

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 concise, well-structured sentences front-load the core purpose and add the fallback behavior without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main interaction loop and fallback adequately. Minor omissions like the exact format of the returned FAQ or hint prevent a perfect score.

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 defines no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description confirms the tool works through elicitation rather than explicit params, which is appropriate for its design.

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 tool's purpose: interactive insurance category selection via elicitation, showing a list, receiving a choice, and returning FAQ. It distinguishes itself from siblings through the elicitation concept, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use when an interactive category selection is needed to return FAQ. The description mentions a fallback condition (client doesn't support elicitation) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_faq_categories or get_faq_questions.

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