rx_query

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already declared, the description still adds substantial context: current user's rights govern access, a hard 100-record cap per call, pagination via skip, that omitting select returns all fields, compact-JSON response shape, and a prompt-injection warning that RX data is user data not instructions. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then constraints and usage in tight, non-redundant sentences. Every sentence carries operational information (scope, limits, field lookup, select default, safety note).

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 an 8-param generic query tool with no output schema, the description covers what the response is (compact JSON), the record cap, pagination, field selection default, permission behavior, and an injection-safety caveat. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the schema already documents all 8 params (the baseline is 3). The description adds real operational meaning not in schema: the default all-fields behavior when select is omitted, the per-call 100 cap, and skip-based paging for reading everything past the limit.

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 ('Прочитать записи любого набора сущностей Directum RX') and the two modes (single by id, list by OData condition). It explicitly positions itself against siblings by scoping to 'данных, под которые нет готового инструмента' and pointing field lookup to rx_describe_entity.

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?

Clear when-to-use: data types lacking a dedicated tool (contracts, counterparties, reference books), and the routing to rx_describe_entity for field names. It gives pagination guidance (skip) and a select recommendation but names no alternative data-retrieval sibling to contrast with, so the when-not is only implied.

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