cdek_checks

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or side-effect absence. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Moderate transparency for a simple fetch operation.

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 very concise: a single paragraph with a clear purpose, usage constraint, and parameter explanations. No redundant or wasteful sentences. Front-loaded with the main purpose and HTTP 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 the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage constraint. It does not explain return values (reasonable since output schema exists) or error handling. One could argue that explicit mention of read-only behavior would improve completeness, but overall it's adequate.

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 0%, so the description adds crucial meaning: explanations for order_uuid (Order UUID), cdek_number (CDEK tracking number), and date (YYYY-MM-DD format). It also adds the constraint 'Provide at least one filter,' which is not in the schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: getting check information (чеков) via GET /v2/check. It specifies it provides info by order or day, and requires at least one filter. The name 'cdek_checks' and the description distinguish it from sibling tools focused on orders, tracking, deliveries, etc. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 explicitly states to provide at least one filter (order_uuid, cdek_number, or date), which is a key usage constraint. It implies when to use this tool (to retrieve check info) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings. However, given the distinct purpose and naming, the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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