rx_project_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and 'Только чтение' merely restates that. The valuable addition is the disclosed result shape ('#Id название · состояние · проект · сроки · процент'), output information that exists nowhere in the structured fields since there is no output schema. It does not cover defaults/limits, but those live in the schema.

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 sentences: purpose, result format, then usage routing. Front-loaded with the verb+resource and no filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, sibling routing, search keys and the returned row format. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 schema already documents limit, query and project_id with defaults and maximums. The description only echoes the search-by-name / search-by-project split already implied by the params, adding no syntax or format detail. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Поиск планов проектов') and the two search keys (название / Id проекта). It explicitly distinguishes itself from both rx_project_plan (use this to obtain the Id) and rx_project (which already lists a project's plans), so an agent can route without opening a sibling schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('когда проект неизвестен' – to find the plan Id before calling rx_project_plan) and an explicit when-not-to-use (a single project's plans are already listed in rx_project). Both the condition and the alternative are named.

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