Сопоставить имеющиеся диалоги

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by clarifying the operation is server-side, uses current settings, and returns linked/created/skipped — information not conveyed by annotations. It doesn't detail side effects or permissions, but given the annotation coverage this is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No wasted words, though the second sentence about manual links could arguably be merged or trimmed.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety/side-effect hints, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a key behavioral nuance (manual links ignored). Missing only explicit usage alternatives, but it is otherwise 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 100% for the single 'case' parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning and fallback behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource — 'Запускает серверное автоматическое сопоставление' (launches server-side automatic matching) — and names the outputs (linked/created/skipped). It is clearly distinct from siblings like counterparties_link/counterparties_get, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Implies usage via the phrase 'по текущим настройкам' (per current settings) and notes that manual links are handled by the panel itself, which hints at scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools like counterparties_link.

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