iiko: получить токен

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: the ability to forcibly refresh (implying caching) and the output of an issued JWT. It does not mention side effects like external API calls, but for a token retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the use case. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, behaviors (caching/force), and output format. It is sufficiently complete without needing to explain return values or complex side effects.

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% and both parameters (force and apiLogin) are already well-defined in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Получить (или принудительно обновить) access_token v2' (get or forcibly refresh access_token v2), identifying both the verb and the resource. It also notes a specific use case (debugging authorization) and output type (JWT), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like iiko_organizations or iiko_nomenclature.

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 provides a clear context of use: 'Полезно для отладки авторизации' (useful for debugging authorization). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is narrow and the sibling tools do not overlap, so the guidance is adequate.

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