tochka_acquiring_registry

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may vary). The description adds the context that the registry is for a specific date, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions. Even though it does not detail pagination or response structure, the presence of an output schema compensates for return value documentation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes only essential information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter descriptions. No fluff or redundancy.

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 context signals (2 required parameters, output schema exists, sibling tools cover related functionality), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core operation and a critical dependency. The output schema likely documents the return structure, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds brief semantics for both parameters: 'merchant_id: Merchant identifier' and 'registry_date: Registry date YYYY-MM-DD'. The date format hint is valuable, but the descriptions are minimal and could elaborate on acceptable formats or constraints.

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 'Get acquiring payment registry for a specific date' – a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('acquiring payment registry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tochka_acquiring_retailers' (retrieves merchant IDs) and 'tochka_acquiring_payments' (likely payments), making its unique purpose evident.

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 directs the agent to use 'tochka_acquiring_retailers' to obtain valid merchant_id values, providing a clear prerequisite. It also specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) in the Args section. However, it does not compare with other acquiring tools or describe scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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