second_receipt_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the max receipts constraint and provides typical field structures. However, it omits failure modes, idempotency, and permission requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses bullet points for items/payments/client format, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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?

Given 11 parameters (8 required) with nested objects, the description provides useful context for some but not all. Output schema exists, so return values are covered; however, parameter explanations are incomplete for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for 'merchant_id', 'origin_id', 'items', 'payments', and 'client' via examples. But it does not explain 'receipt_id', 'total', 'url', 'password1', 'sno', or 'vats', which are required or optional.

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 verb ('Emit') and resource ('final fiscal receipt'), with the specific context of 54-ФЗ and advance/prepayment sale. It distinguishes from siblings like 'second_receipt_status' which likely checks status.

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 specifies it's for merchants using Robokassa Fiscal and mentions max 2 receipts per operation. It gives typical examples for payments and client, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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