Контрагенты

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral information beyond those annotations: it gives domain categories rather than disclosing return behavior, filtering semantics, or any side effects.

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?

The text is very short and easy to scan, which is a positive, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a complete operational description. It uses its limited space for definitional content and omits the core action and usage context that an agent needs.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should at least state that it returns the list of counterparties and how the optional 'business' parameter scopes the result. The current description is too thin, forcing an agent to rely on the tool name and parameter schema to infer what the tool actually does.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description only repeats the 'дела' context already covered by the 'business' parameter and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 'Контрагенты дела: покупатели, поставщики, сотрудники, госорганы' is a noun phrase defining what counterparties are, not what the tool does. It lacks a verb such as 'list', 'return', or 'show', and mostly restates the resource named in the title while adding category examples rather than an operational purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like counterparties_save, counterparties_delete, or counterparty_groups. The only contextual hint is the 'дела' scope, which is already present in the 'business' parameter description, so it does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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