invoice_processing__list_inventory_internal_transfers

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds), a caching recommendation, and guidance for obtaining organizationId from another tool. 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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the ID source, and the throttling/caching note. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: purpose, period, organizationId provenance, and rate limiting. It does not discuss pagination or response shape, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'за период' clarifies that from/to define the period, and the organizationId source is pointed to organizations__get_organizations. However, it does not explain the exact format of from/to or address additional_properties, leaving gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Список документов внутреннего перемещения за период' (list of internal transfer documents for the period). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inventory_writeoff_documents or list_inventory_production_documents by naming the exact document type.

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 when to use the tool (listing internal transfers over a period) and provides a source for the organizationId. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, leaving differentiation to the tool name and purpose.

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