Контрагенты дела

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add useful context about the shape of the payload (contacts, notes, extra fields, linked dialogs), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or volume limits.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and enumerating the returned sub-entities. It is concise, though arguably too terse to carry the tool's full semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what a counterparty record contains, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, it omits any explanation of the free-text 'search' parameter or the default-case resolution behavior implied by the schema, leaving the definition only minimally 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 coverage is only 50% (the 'search' parameter has no schema description), and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the gap. Only the 'case' parameter is documented, and that is done entirely in the schema, not the description.

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 names the resource (counterparties) and enumerates what it surfaces (contacts, notes, custom fields, related dialogs), but it uses no verb and never states that this is a list/retrieval operation. It does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling counterparties_get, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as counterparties_get, counterparties_dialogs or counterparties_settings, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only faintly implied by the plural resource name.

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