Раздел ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by stating all sections are read-only and that application submission is not implemented, plus which sections may return empty. It does not describe response shape beyond section content, which is acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core scope, then one clause per section. Dense but every clause earns its place given a 10-value enum; the only deduction is that it is a single unstructured paragraph rather than a scannable list.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does per section (fields, empty conditions, pagination notes). For a complex multi-section reader this is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 100%, giving baseline 3. The description goes beyond the schema's bare enum list by explaining what each section value actually returns, and reiterates that limit applies only to tasks and offset only to login_history (matching schema). Adds genuine meaning over the enum names.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one section of the HSE personal cabinet by name) and enumerates all ten section values with what each returns. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling elk_get_academic_data for rating/GPA/group. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is routed per section: login_history is for account security checking, portfolio ties to increased scholarship, empty-result conditions are noted for thesis, dpo_programs, scholarship_history. It also names the alternative (elk_get_academic_data) and states write actions are not implemented. Very clear context; the only minor gap is no explicit 'use this when' framing for sections like tasks/internships.

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