Инструкция по работе с источником

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it returns an instruction, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether the instruction is static/cached, whether it changes over time, or the return format/size. For a read-only reference tool this is a moderate gap, not catastrophic, but the description adds little beyond the name and title.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then efficiently enumerates the two enum values with their meanings, and closes with the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but no waste.

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 1-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, the enum semantics, and the usage trigger. It lacks disclosure of what the returned instruction looks like (text, structured, etc.), which would help an agent know how to consume it. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 has 100% description coverage and an enum, so the parameter is fully documented structurally. The description does add semantic meaning by explaining what each enum value ('apartment-search', 'criteria-coverage') actually signifies, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'имя инструкции'. However, it doesn't explain formatting or constraints, so it's not a strong 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает инструкцию' — returns an instruction) and enumerates the two instruction types with what each contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings (search, count, listing, etc.), but the enumerations give enough specificity that an agent can tell it's a guidance/reference tool rather than a query 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?

Provides a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Вызывай перед сборкой многокритериального поиска' (call before assembling a multi-criteria search). This ties this tool to a specific workflow moment. It doesn't name siblings as alternatives or say when NOT to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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