Автозагрузка: отчёт по ID (v2, deprecated)

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

Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements), so it does not significantly enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 concise (one sentence) but still conveys the essential information: deprecation and purpose. While efficient, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only says 'statistics' without detailing what the report contains (e.g., fields, format). This lack of completeness may confuse an agent about the return value, especially for a tool with no sibling output comparison.

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 fully describes the sole parameter (report_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning; thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for getting statistics for a specific upload (report by ID), and explicitly marks it as deprecated with a recommendation to use v3, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 advises against using this tool (deprecated) and directs to v3, providing clear guidance on when not to use. However, it does not elaborate on specific scenarios where it might still be appropriate.

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