Карточка мерчанта

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope (organization-level merchant data) and the fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if no merchant is found. The description is honest but thin on behavioral detail.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource type and lists the key data fields. It is efficient and free of filler, though it could be slightly more explicit about the action (e.g., 'returns' vs 'data').

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource and the fields returned. However, it lacks any statement about authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the data is current/live, which an agent might need to know when deciding to call it.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which helps an agent understand what the tool provides. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource relationship: it retrieves merchant organization data, listing specific fields (name, status, assigned managers, creation/modification dates). It is distinguishable from siblings by the merchant-specific scope, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 read-only lookup use case for merchant data, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With 0 parameters, the tool is self-contained, so usage context is less critical, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other get-style tools.

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