get_contragent_bills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it supports filtering by is_paid, or any pagination/error behavior. The only added behavioral context is the date format and the source of contragent_id, which are mostly parameter semantics.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose statement followed by concise parameter definitions. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence adds some useful information.

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 simple read-style tool with four parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it explains the key identifier and date format. But with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of any explanation for is_paid and the absence of return-value or behavior details leave meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains contragent_id as the UUID from get_contragent_status and specifies the dd.MM.yyyy format for date_from/date_to. However, it completely omits the is_paid parameter and does not clarify what true/false values represent.

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 identifies a specific resource: counterparty bills/invoices over a date period. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_contragent_debt or get_contragent_status, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action sentence like 'Returns...'.

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 intended use is implied by 'Счета контрагента за период' and the date parameters: use this tool to get counterparty bills within a period. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_contragent_debt.

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