second_receipt_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool checks status, implying a read operation, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, error handling, or the response format. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return value description, but the description is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence captures the purpose, and the second provides a critical usage tip, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations or schema descriptions), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the `receipt_id` and `password1` parameters, nor does it cover expected behavior or edge cases. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it or provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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 the description must clarify parameter meanings. It only explains that `merchant_id` should be set to 'robokassa_state' for status lookups, but does not describe `receipt_id` or `password1`, leaving their roles unclear. This adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 'Check' and the resource 'registration status of a 54-ФЗ fiscal receipt', which accurately defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like second_receipt_create or refund_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 provides a specific usage hint: 'Use `merchant_id="robokassa_state"` for status lookups', which guides the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or describe alternative scenarios.

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