get_customer_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-only style behavior by saying 'Отдаёт реквизиты' and adds a useful limitation about volume summaries requiring a machine-exchange token. However, the token sentence is ambiguous about whether the base card also requires a token and what happens when the token is absent.

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?

Three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by the returned content and a limitation caveat. Each sentence contributes meaningful information and there is no padding.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that part is not a gap. The main missing context is that the schema allows all parameters to be omitted, while the description implies lookup by INN or OGRN but never requires at least one. It also does not clarify whether the token limitation affects the whole call or only the volume summary.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with formats and defaults (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond naming INN or OGRN as identifiers, which duplicates the schema and does not clarify whether at least one identifier is required or how the period parameters relate to the volume summary.

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 names a specific resource, 'Карточка заказчика' (customer card), and states that it returns requisites and RNP status from the official EIS site using INN or OGRN. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_tender or search_tenders. However, the tool name says 'history' but the description never explains what the history aspect is, and it does not explicitly differentiate from get_supplier_stats.

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 gives a clear lookup context: use this tool when you need a customer card from EIS by INN or OGRN. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for tool selection.

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