Открыть контрагента

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: the dialogs field is gated on the chat.view right, which an agent cannot learn from the annotations. It still omits what happens on a missing/unauthorized counterparty, so not a 5.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the entity and its key source come first, then the visibility caveat. No filler or 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 read-only single-entity fetch with no output schema, the definition covers the required identity source and the one behavioral caveat (dialog visibility). It leaves the card's contents and error behavior unstated, but annotations carry the safety profile, so this is nearly complete.

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 50% – 'case' is documented in the schema but counterparty_id carries only a pattern. The description partially compensates by stating counterparty_id is a UUID sourced from counterparties_list, but adds nothing about the 'case' parameter's default-resolution behavior.

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+resource ('Карточка контрагента') and scopes it to a UUID obtained from counterparties_list, which separates it from that sibling. It does not distinguish itself from other counterparties_* siblings it could be confused with (e.g. counterparties_dialogs), so it falls short of 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 phrase 'по UUID из counterparties_list' implies the workflow (list first, then fetch one) and the chat.view permission prerequisite is stated. However, it never says when NOT to use it or names an alternative for bulk/lookup-by-name needs, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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