iiko: меню/номенклатура

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a POST endpoint, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is necessary, or what the response looks like. The agent is left without critical behavioral information.

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 extremely concise: a single phrase with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the resource and endpoint, so it earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the tool description is very thin. It does not describe the return value, data format, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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 only 2 parameters, with organizationId described but apiLogin not. The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the 50% schema description coverage. It does not explain how the parameters map to the menu retrieval.

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 'Organization's menu (POST /api/1/nomenclature)' clearly identifies the resource (menu/nomenclature) and provides the specific endpoint, which is specific enough to infer the tool's scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like iiko_request, so it is not a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iiko_request or iiko_organizations. It is just a noun phrase with no context, exclusions, or alternative references. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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