Диалоги и их контрагенты

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required chat.view permission and the fact that a missing link is reported rather than erroring.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the conditional modes front-loaded ahead of the permission note. Zero 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?

No output schema, but the description explains what each mode returns, including the negative case (no link). For a read-only lookup with idempotent/non-destructive annotations, this is nearly complete; only the search/case parameters go unexplained.

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 only 33%—dialog_id has no description in the schema, and the description usefully explains its role as the mode switch. But 'case' and 'search' carry no meaning in the description, leaving one undocumented param and one only partially clarified by the schema.

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 states a specific dual-mode behavior: without dialog_id it lists dialogs available for linking, with dialog_id it returns the linked counterparty. This is a clear verb+resource, though it never names a sibling tool to differentiate against (e.g. counterparties_link, counterparties_get, dialogs_list).

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 with/without dialog_id split implies when each mode applies, which is useful conditional guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and does not route the agent to the sibling tools that perform the actual linking.

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