Содержимое справочных таблиц

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only, без авторизации', which tells the agent the tool has no mutation side effects and needs no authentication token. This is particularly useful with a taxi_authenticate sibling present. It does not mention pagination or output size, but the core read/no-auth traits are clearly declared.

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 consists of two short sentences, the first front-loading the core action and concrete examples, and the second adding the important access/behavioral facts. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, hints at valid table names, and clarifies read-only/no-auth behavior. It could be slightly richer by explicitly pointing to taxi_reference_list for discovering valid table names, but the schema already supplies that linkage.

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 input schema already describes the single 'tables' parameter clearly—names from taxi_reference_list—so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of table names like car_classes and currencies, which is mildly helpful but does not meaningfully expand the semantics beyond the schema.

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 names the exact action and resource: returning full contents of reference tables, and gives concrete examples such as car_classes, currencies, and payment_ways. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list-style tool (taxi_reference_list) and from the unrelated status/authentication tools, so an agent can identify its role immediately.

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 conveys that the tool is for retrieving reference table contents and states that it is read-only, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus taxi_reference_list or when not to use it. Table-name discovery is only implied through the schema description, not stated in the usage guidance itself.

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