Карточка площадки

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description reveals a non-obvious quirk: the address comes back EMPTY in captured responses, so with_halls=True is needed to fetch halls that carry the address. It also discloses limit semantics and the honest 'N total, shown M' reporting.

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 tight: one line establishes purpose, then two short notes cover important behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or annotations.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It provides enough context for the key mechanics and known quirks, though an explicit mention of what object_id references and a routing hint relative to place-like siblings would make it fully complete.

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?

This tool has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains limit's special behavior (<=0 means all) and with_halls's relation to the missing address, but it never explains object_id, which is the only required parameter.

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 clearly states this is a venue card and enumerates the returned fields: название, город, метро, залы. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like afisha_places or place_schedule, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to select place_info instead of related siblings such as afisha_places or place_schedule. The description implies the tool is for venue info, but it leaves tool-selection context entirely implicit.

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