get_top_peers

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaning to 'top' and enumerates categories but does not disclose how the top is computed, whether results are sorted, or how the limit parameter affects behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the omission of the 'limit' parameter documentation is a minor structural gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core concept and category options but fails to document the limit parameter. Since the schema itself lacks property descriptions, the tool description is the primary source for parameter meaning, and its incompleteness leaves a gap. Overall, adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'category' parameter with an explicit list of allowed values, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is completely unmentioned in the description, leaving its semantics unclear. With one of two parameters covered, partial compensation is achieved.

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 states the tool returns 'Топ часто-используемых контактов' (top frequently used contacts) in a specified category. The category list further specifies the resource scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contacts or list_chats.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. The category enumeration provides context but does not explain when get_top_peers should be preferred over other contact or chat listing tools.

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