Инструкция по работе с источником

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It makes clear that this is a read-only-like instruction retrieval tool, explains what each instruction covers, and frames it as a preliminary step. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but for a simple skill-fetch tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then details the two enum options, and closes with a clear usage directive. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required enum parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. It specifies both allowed parameter values, explains their meaning, and states exactly when the tool should be invoked.

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 provides the enum values with only a terse 'имя инструкции' label, while the description explains what each enum value actually contains: 'apartment-search' covers how to decompose criteria and sequence tools, and 'criteria-coverage' covers what livo.ge handles approximately or not at all. This adds essential meaning 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Возвращает инструкцию' (returns an instruction), and goes further to enumerate the two specific instruction names with their content. This clearly distinguishes get_skill from sibling data-access tools like search or listing, which return actual data rather than guidance.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Вызывай перед сборкой многокритериального поиска' (call it before assembling a multi-criteria search). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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