Справочники значений

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does disclose useful traits: dictionaries are split by estate, names are localized via LIVO_LOCALE, and amenities have stable keys. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how invalid groups are handled, or what the response shape looks like beyond the id->name mapping.

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: purpose first, then the estate-filtering behavior, then localization. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple reference-data tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, estate applicability, and localization. It could still mention behavior when estate is omitted or how the locale is determined, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by explaining that the dictionaries map IDs to names for filters, that most dictionaries are estate-specific, and that localized names depend on LIVO_LOCALE, which goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as id-to-label dictionaries for filter parameters, giving concrete examples such as conditions, project_types, and metro_stations. It lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'get,' but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous and distinct from the broader search/list sibling tools.

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 states when to use the tool: for filters that accept only IDs, and directs the caller to pass estate to get applicable values. The schema additionally gives an explicit exclusion and alternative by noting that locations are not included and should be handled by geo(), providing clear when/where-not guidance.

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