Академическая карточка ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint and the substitution relationship to elk_get_section, which is useful context, but says nothing about freshness, latency, error modes, or what happens when the student has no card.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource with its endpoint and a dense field enumeration, the second delivers the sibling-routing instruction. No filler and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and the field enumeration does that well. Minor gap: terms like 'КУД' and the shape of nested data (per-semester vs aggregate GPA/credits) are not clarified, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description cannot be faulted for parameter semantics here.

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?

Names a specific resource (академическая карточка студента) and enumerates exactly what it contains — рейтинг, GPA, кредиты, программа, факультет, курс, группа, статус — so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling elk_get_section by positioning itself as the structured replacement for its profile section.

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 clause 'Структурированная замена разделу profile в elk_get_section' tells the agent to prefer this tool over elk_get_section for profile data, which is a genuine routing signal. It stops short of any explicit when-not condition or other alternatives, but the sibling relationship is clear.

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