get_customer_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the requirement of an API key and that it is a Pro feature, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. For a read operation, this is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every piece of information (Pro hosted, API key requirement) is relevant and there is no wasted text.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers authentication (API key) and the Pro restriction. However, it does not explicitly state that INN and OGRN are mutually exclusive or that at least one is required, which is a minor gap. Overall, fairly complete for a simple query 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'by INN or OGRN' is redundant). No additional value is provided.

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 retrieves customer purchase history by INN or OGRN, specifying it is a Pro hosted API. The verb 'gets history' and specific resource 'customer by INN/OGRN' are explicit. The name and description differentiate it from siblings like 'get_supplier_stats' or 'search_tenders'.

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 for retrieving customer history by tax identifier, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear and the sibling tool names are distinct, making the intended use apparent.

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