Проверить доступ к Wordstat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the operation is a check, implying a non-mutating, read-only behavior, and it lists what is verified. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether any side effects exist, or what response the agent should expect.

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 concise: the first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds workflow-compatibility context. Both sentences are short, but the workflow reference is somewhat vague and could be seen as non-essential. Still, it is efficient and well front-loaded.

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 access-check tool, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is checked and against what service. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but no output schema exists and the absence is less critical for a simple check operation.

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 zero parameters and the schema is fully covered by the empty properties object. The description adds useful context about what is being checked internally (API key, folder ID, role), which is not expressed in the schema. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('проверяет') and names the exact resources checked: API key, folder ID, role, and Wordstat v2 availability. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-retrieval tools (top requests, dynamics, regions), which all fetch analytics data rather than verify access.

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 purpose implies usage: an agent would call this to verify credentials and access before using Wordstat data tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The 'Совместимое имя для workflow ЯДрышко' note hints at workflow context but does not provide clear usage rules.

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