invoice_processing__get_inventory_writeoff_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: a throttling limit of 10 requests per 60 seconds and a caching recommendation, which are not in the annotations. This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent plan calls.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It packs the ID sourcing and throttling into the second sentence efficiently. No wasted words, though the ambiguity of 'ID' reduces clarity slightly. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns – it does not. It also leaves documentId unexplained and does not mention any error conditions or that it is a read-only operation (though annotations cover that). For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete; an agent would not know what response to expect or how to properly construct the request beyond organizationId.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the source of organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) but completely omits documentId, which is a required parameter. The phrase 'по id' is ambiguous – it does not clarify that both documentId and organizationId are needed, nor what documentId represents. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 'Акт списания по id' (write-off act by ID) clearly states the tool retrieves a specific write-off document by identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_inventory_writeoff_documents, which list many documents, and other get_* tools by specifying the document type. The verb is implicit ('get') but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on obtaining the organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, which is directly useful. It also gives throttling and caching advice. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of listing tools, though that is implied by the 'by id' nature. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive on alternatives.

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