invoice_processing__get_finance_outgoing_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a specific throttling constraint (10 requests per 60 seconds) and advises caching results, which is beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with two sentences that front-load the purpose, then give a sourcing tip, then the rate-limit advice. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is efficient and readable, though it could be more structured with explicit sections.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers the purpose, one ID source, and rate limiting. However, it omits how to obtain the documentId, which is essential for calling the tool. Given the annotations cover safety and the schema describes parameter types, the main gap is the missing documentId sourcing, making the description adequate but not complete.

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 schema provides descriptions for documentId and organizationId individually, but the tool description adds no explanation of how to obtain the documentId, which is a required parameter. It only hints at organizationId sourcing. The description does not clarify that the 'request' parameter is an object containing these two fields, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for parameter structure.

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 states the specific resource: 'Акт расхода услуг по id' (act of expense of services by id), clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_finance_incoming_service, but the resource name and the 'расхода' (expense) wording sufficiently distinguish it from the incoming variant.

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 guidance on sourcing the organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, which is a useful prerequisite hint. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_finance_outgoing_services to find documentId) or state the condition for invoking it. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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