Проверка соединения

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real context beyond them — that it re-reads $metadata and updates the schema cache (a state-affecting side effect worth knowing about), that it validates authorization, and what it returns (OData version, visible object count). It stops short of noting cost or latency of a metadata refresh, which would matter on large bases.

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 short sentences with a clear order: what it checks, what it refreshes and returns, when to call it. Nothing is redundant or buried, and the usage trigger is placed last where it is easy to find.

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 one-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and usage trigger. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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% and the single optional parameter is already documented with its default and its link to list_databases. The phrase 'для выбранной базы' merely echoes the parameter, so the description adds essentially nothing the schema does not already carry.

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 and resource: verifies availability of the 1C OData service and correctness of authorization for the selected database, then refreshes $metadata and returns the OData version plus visible object count. This is unmistakably distinct from every read/write sibling in the list, none of which touch connectivity or schema cache.

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 instructs 'Вызывайте первым, если другие инструменты выдают ошибки' — a concrete diagnostic trigger that names the condition for use. The database parameter's own schema description ties it to list_databases, so the agent also knows where the input comes from.

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