invoice_processing__list_inventory_disassemble_documents

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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a throttling limit (max 10 requests per 60 seconds) and a caching recommendation, which are not present in annotations. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the ID source, then throttling advice. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, making it appropriately concise and structured.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs (period, organizationId) and adds throttling/caching guidance. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any result structure, which might be expected for a list operation. Given the simplicity and the existence of similar sibling tools, it is adequate but not fully 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 top-level parameter 'request' has no description in the schema (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It mentions organizationId and how to obtain it, and implies a date range via 'за период'. However, it does not explain the structure of the request object or the exact meaning of 'from' and 'to' beyond what the nested schema fields already state. It adds some but not full compensation for the missing top-level parameter description.

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 lists disassembly acts (акты разборки) for a period, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_inventory_writeoff_documents by naming a specific document type, making it 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?

The description implies usage (when you need disassembly acts, use this tool) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives a hint on how to obtain organizationId, but no guidance on selecting among the many list tools in the same family.

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