Платформа: история статусов заказа

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return structure (status, description, timestamps, optional reason) and the temporal scope ('от создания до текущего момента'). This helps the agent understand what data will be returned without needing an output schema.

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 one sentence and front-loads the purpose. It packs the output format into the sentence without excessive wording. The only minor issue is the unexplained acronym 'НДД', which might confuse agents unfamiliar with the domain, so it loses one point.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is comprehensive. It specifies the output structure and temporal scope, which is essential since there is no output schema. The presence of siblings is well-handled by the clarity of the tool's unique purpose. No significant gaps remain.

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% for the only parameter (request_id) and its description already explains that it is the order ID from platform_confirm_offer. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool returns the history of order status changes ('История смены статусов заказа') and specifies the exact output structure (state_history array with fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform_get_request, which presumably fetches the current request state rather than its full timeline.

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 provides clear context: it is used to get the history of status changes from creation to the current moment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer when to use this tool. The schema also hints that the request_id comes from platform_confirm_offer, which adds prerequisite context.

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