Новостройки (проекты застройщиков)

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that min_price arrives as a range in three currencies and that uuid selects a single project card. Still, it does not describe list-mode response shape, pagination behavior, or other output fields, so disclosure is only partial.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The most important distinction — separate dataset, not listings — is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

The description covers the single-project mode and a key output quirk, and the schema documents all parameters. But there is no output schema, and the tool's list mode, default behavior, and the interaction of city/areas/page/limit are left implicit, so an agent has to infer significant context.

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% and every parameter already has a description. The uuid behavior in the description largely repeats the schema's own uuid description, so it adds little new parameter-level meaning. The min_price note concerns the response rather than the input parameters.

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 resource ('проекты застройщиков'), uses the concrete verb 'возвращает' for the uuid mode, and explicitly states this is a separate livo dataset, not a subset of listings. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'listing' tool.

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 uuid sentence provides a clear conditional: use it to get a single project card. The 'not a subset of listings' statement also guides the agent away from the listing sibling. However, it does not address alternatives like count, search, or geo, or say explicitly when list mode is preferred.

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