Билет: QR и код брони

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: partner-dependent availability (e.g., Ticketland gives neither QR nor PDF), that QR is a payload string not an image, and that missing output is explicitly communicated. 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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core return value. The statistical detail about 75 afisha orders adds context but is slightly verbose; however it reinforces the behavioral nuance. Overall it is reasonably concise for the information it needs to convey.

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?

This is a read-only ticket lookup with an output schema, and the description covers essential runtime concerns: what fields are returned, provider variability, relationship to order_details, and the meaning of empty responses. This is sufficient for an agent to select and interpret the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that order_id refers to a paid order in the orders feed, that unpaid orders are not present, and how an empty response maps to the absence of a ticket. While it does not spell out the exact format or source of order_id, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 that the tool returns the ticket details for a paid order: booking code, QR and PDF link. It explicitly distinguishes itself from order_details(), which only returns the booking code, making the purpose specific and differentiating.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on where the data lives vs. order_details(), which function not to use, and explains the empty-response meaning: 'ticket not yet available' rather than 'order does not exist'. This directly helps an agent decide when to call this tool and how to interpret results.

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