Настройки сопоставления контрагентов

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. The description adds domain content only and does not disclose return behavior, pagination, or any other trait beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment, tightly scoped and front-loaded with the settings categories. There is no filler, though the fragment lacks a verb.

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 settings-retrieval tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves key information missing: it never states the tool returns settings, nor how to invoke it relative to the save sibling. The agent must infer too much.

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 100% and the single optional 'case' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and its contents (manual/automatic mode, criteria, variables) but provides no verb indicating whether it reads, writes, or manages settings. It therefore does not clearly distinguish this retrieval-side tool from siblings like counterparties_settings_save.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus counterparties_settings_save or other counterparty tools. An agent must infer that this returns settings while the sibling mutates them.

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