Список тарифов сетевых дисков

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not address the non-read-only hint. It adds useful return content details (price, size range, IOPS) but does not disclose side effects or permissions. The description is compatible with annotations, so no contradiction.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and output details, followed by a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple nature (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers return content and intended usage. It includes price per GB, size range, and IOPS, and tells the agent to use it before create_network_drive, leaving no critical gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already provides full coverage. No parameter-level detail is needed, and the description adds nothing extra. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and specifies the resource 'список доступных тарифов для сетевых дисков' (list of available presets for network drives), including details on price, size range, and IOPS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_network_drives and list_network_drive_available_resources.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to use this tool before create_network_drive to select a preset_id, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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