Хронология документа (аудит)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the most important behavioral traits: refCreatedAt is confidence=derived (UUIDv1-based, NOT verified creation/posting time), actual execution and modification times are unavailable, DataVersion is returned uninterpreted, and register movements are presence-only. This is exactly the caveat surface an agent needs to avoid over-claiming.

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 core constraint ('what can be provably said about time') is front-loaded, and every clause carries real caveat value. It is dense and clause-heavy with semicolons and parentheticals, which hurts scannability slightly, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

For a tool whose whole point is auditable honesty about data provenance, the description fully covers the returned fields, their confidence caveats, and the explicit limitations. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description frames them usefully, leaving no gap an agent must bridge.

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% and the description largely restates what the schema already documents (documentEntity = Document_*, documentRef = Ref_Key GUID). The only marginal addition is pointing to list_entities for the entity name, so 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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns what can be provably said about a document's timing (documentDate and derived refCreatedAt), and it is emphatic about what it will NOT return (actual execution/last-modification time). This is a concrete, well-differentiated purpose that an agent can distinguish from get_document or search_documents.

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?

It gives useful context on obtaining the parameters (documentEntity from list_entities, documentRef as Ref_Key) and frames the scope as 'provably sayable via standard OData', which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over sibling read tools like get_document, nor does it state any exclusion condition.

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