Каталог платёжных провайдеров

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond that by revealing the 60-second shared cache with pay_bill, the meaning of pages when searching by provider_id, and the fact that query filters only the current page. It even clarifies that catalog search scans pages; all this makes non-obvious behavior explicit with 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 organized by usage mode: no arguments, group/query/page, provider_id, and next steps. Every sentence delivers a concrete fact—read-only behavior, pagination, cache behavior, and the single-source-of-truth rule—without filler. It is longer than average but earned by the tool's multi-mode complexity.

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 multi-mode catalog tool with neither required parameters nor useful schema descriptions, this covers everything: it lists all modes, explains all five parameters, exposes the caching and search-boundary behavior, and ties into the next step pay_bill. The output schema is present so the description does not need to re-describe return shapes; the context around the tool is fully sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full meaning, and it does. It defines all five parameters: group is a group name not an id, query is a substring within the current group and page, page is the catalog page number, pages controls how many pages to scan for an id (default 5), and provider_id activates the payment-fields mode. This is more informative than the schema alone and compensates fully for the coverage gap.

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 defines the tool as a catalog of payment providers (housing, communications, fines, taxes, internet), says it is read-only, and states concretely what it prints: groups when no arguments, and provider fields when given provider_id. It also positions itself as the only source of the payment form, which clearly distinguishes it from payment-processing siblings like pay_bill.

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 gives an explicit start path ('с них и начинай', then payment_providers(group=...)'), explains the difference between group name and id, and provides a typical flow payment_providers(provider_id=...) -> pay_bill(provider_id). It also warns that 'not found' without a group is a search-boundary, not a fact, and directs the agent to get_payment_context when needed. That is precise when-to-use guidance.

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