api_get_v1_package_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds only the HTTP method and a brief phrase, but no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or side effects. It fails to leverage the opportunity to explain the 'openWorld' nature or any non-obvious behavior.

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 short, but this under-specification is not true conciseness. It lacks a proper sentence explaining the tool's function, parameters, or return value. The structure is minimal (endpoint + dash + short phrase), which does not provide enough useful information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it doesn't. It also fails to differentiate from many sibling report tools and provides no context about what 'package_report' or 'non-deliveries' means in practice. The tool has 3 optional parameters and no required ones, yet the description gives no hint of expected behavior or examples beyond the endpoint path.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Query-параметр (пример: 12345)'), and the tool description adds no semantic meaning for id, key, or dry_run. The description does not compensate for the weak schema explanations, but per the rubric, a score of 3 is appropriate when coverage is high.

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 'GET /api/v1/package_report — Недоставки пакетной отправки v1' indicates this tool retrieves a report about non-deliveries for package/batch sends. This is more specific than a tautology but remains vague: it does not clarify the report's content, structure, or differences from sibling tools like api_get_v1_package_report_fbl or api_get_v1_package_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the endpoint name and vague phrase.

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