api_get_v1_get_stop_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 known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond labeling it a report, omitting details about response format, filtering semantics, or authentication 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 a single, compact line with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. It lacks substantive content but is appropriately sized for a minimal identification of the endpoint.

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 there is no output schema and the tool is a report generator, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the report contains, how the parameters affect the results, or when to prefer this over similar sibling tools.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as a 'report on non-deliveries' (Отчёт о недоставках) with a GET endpoint, making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not specify the scope or criteria of the report, nor does it distinguish it from sibling report tools like get_non_delivery_by_date or get_fbl_report_by_date.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a bare title with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related report endpoints.

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