Экспресс: информация о заявке

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

Despite having readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds a crucial behavioral warning: error_messages may appear inside a successful 200 response. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for correct handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a concise field list, but the long enumeration of statuses adds some bulk. Still, every element (fields, statuses, warning) serves a purpose, so it earns a 4.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fills the gap by listing all key response fields (status, version, items, pricing, performer_info, eta, timestamps) and even enumerates possible status values. The additional error_messages caveat makes it fully contextual for a get tool.

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 single parameter claim_id is fully described in the schema (including format and source). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Полная информация по заявке' and enumerates the fields returned, making it clear this is a read/get operation for claim details. It also lists possible statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept/cancel.

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 notes that the version field is needed for accept/cancel, providing a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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