api_get_v1_package_report_fbl

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as response format, pagination, or prerequisites. It simply restates the resource and method without enriching the safety profile beyond what annotations already provide.

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, short line that is front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint. It is concise and efficient, with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, making it more of a label than a descriptive explanation.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description does not explain what the response contains or how the parameters affect the report. The minimal prose forces the agent to infer tool behavior from the endpoint name and schema, which is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's semantics.

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. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters (key, dry_run, pack_id); it only relies on the schema's brief descriptions. No additional usage hints are provided beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 names the HTTP method and endpoint, and 'Жалобы пакетной отправки v1' indicates it retrieves batch-sending complaints. It is distinguished from siblings by the 'fbl' suffix. However, it reads as a title rather than a full action statement, leaving the exact retrieval behavior implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_get_v1_get_fbl_report or get_fbl_report_by_date. The description does not mention filtering by pack_id or any criteria for selecting this endpoint.

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