rx_kb_areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so 'Только чтение' partly restates them. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: these are internal company articles (not system documentation) and the record shape returned per area. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tightly packed clauses: what the resource is and contains, what to use it for, and which sibling to use instead. Scope and routing are front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (Id, name, starting article). Safety is covered by annotations, and the sibling routing plus internal-vs-system scope is present, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('подстрока названия области'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only nods to filtering via the area_id narrowing hint, adding no syntax or matching details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (knowledge base areas in Directum RX, 'Знания' module) and enumerates what each area carries (Id, name, starting article). It is immediately distinguishable from rx_kb_search (article search) and rx_help_search (system docs).

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?

Explicitly states the use case — discover which knowledge sections exist and narrow rx_kb_search by area_id — and gives a negative routing rule: system questions belong to rx_help_search. Alternatives and conditions are spelled out, not implied.

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