Каталог пополнений и ваучеров

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly frames the operation as a read-only list and adds a meaningful behavioral trait: the set of available items varies by payment method. It does not mention response shape, pagination, or auth, but for a simple catalog listing this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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, information-dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of the tool name or the schema's already-obvious details.

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 low-complexity catalog query with two fully enumerated parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its key dependency on payment method. It could mention whether items include prices/identifiers, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully documents both enum parameters, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping each 'kind' to concrete content (topup = games/in-game items, vouchers = services/denominations) and by explaining that the result depends on the 'payment' value. This goes beyond the bare enum descriptions.

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 clearly states the resource: 'Список доступных позиций' (list of available items) and defines what each kind contains — games/in-game items for topup and services/voucher denominations for vouchers. It is functionally distinct from the sibling order/price tools, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against a sibling 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?

The description implies a discovery/pre-order use case and notes that the returned set depends on the payment method. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related price or order tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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