api_get_v1_get_fbl_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the report contains, response format scope, or any constraints. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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 a single line with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage, so brevity here is not a virtue.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the FBL report is and how to use it. It only gives a cryptic Russian title, leaving the agent without enough context to select this tool over siblings.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (key, date, dry_run) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline for high schema coverage is met.

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 is essentially the endpoint path with a vague Russian title 'Отчёт о пожаловавшихся v1' (Report on complainants v1). It does not explicitly state the tool's function in English, and it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_fbl_report_by_date or get_fbl_report_by_issue.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions exists. Given that several sibling tools target FBL reports, this omission is significant.

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