get_serviced_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only names the returned data and gives no context about side effects, authorization, error behavior, or response format; the read-only nature is only inferable from the tool name.

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 noun phrase with no filler words; all included phrases ('service periods', 'start/end dates', 'personal account or INN') are informative. It is concise, but it is structured as a fragment rather than a sentence.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return concept (start/end dates) and input semantics. It does not describe edge cases or the full response shape, but those are low-complexity gaps for this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies that the single required 'pa_or_inn' parameter accepts a personal account or INN. It adds real semantic value, though it does not give format examples or disambiguation rules.

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 names the resource ('service periods') and scopes it to a personal account or INN, and adds the data shape (start/end dates), so an agent can tell it apart from debt/bill/status siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get' for the action.

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?

Usage is implied: if the agent needs service periods for a personal account or INN, this is the tool. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or any mention of conditions/exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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