Карточка объявления

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: phone is 'частично скрыт' and created_at is the true publication date, which is a meaningful clarification beyond a generic timestamp. It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only or cover error behavior, but for a simple card-fetch tool the key behavioral facts are present.

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 with no fluff: the first enumerates the card contents compactly, and the second highlights the unique created_at property. Every sentence earns its place and the key differentiator is front-loaded in the second sentence after the core resource definition.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job of communicating what the agent will receive: a full listing card with a specified list of attributes, plus a note that phone is partially hidden and created_at is uniquely available here. The input parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. Missing explicit response-structure details are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and with_similars. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning created_at, which is an output field rather than a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 defines the resource: 'Полная карточка' followed by a field list (описание, удобства, координаты, этажность, состояние, кадастр, просмотры, телефон). It also differentiates from siblings by noting that created_at is 'единственное место, где она приходит явно'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'return' or 'fetch', so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'единственное место, где она приходит явно' explicitly tells an agent to use this tool when the real publication date is needed, which is a clear when-to-use signal. The enumerated field list also implies this is the tool for full listing details. It does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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