История по поставщику

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that only receipt (purchase) documents are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, truncation at the default limit of 100, or cross-base scope — all relevant for a query tool that can be capped.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and period, then the practical hint about where to get the ref. No filler, though the middle sentence ('Показывает закупки у поставщика') largely repeats the first.

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?

With an output schema present and all six parameters fully documented, the description only needs to convey purpose, scope and the ref dependency — which it does. It stops short of noting the default limit of 100 / max 500 or how this differs from the customer-history counterpart, which would make it airtight.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by stating the provenance of the required 'ref' parameter ('Ref_Key — из find_counterparty'), which the schema only labels as 'Ref_Key контрагента'. The period semantics of from/to are restated only loosely.

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 resource and scope: 'Документы поступления по контрагенту-поставщику за период' — receipt documents for a supplier counterparty within a date range, plus the clarifying 'Показывает закупки у поставщика'. That is enough to separate it from the sibling read.counterparty.get_customer_history, though the alternative is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('закупки у поставщика', 'за период'), and the prerequisite 'Ref_Key — из find_counterparty' gives the agent a starting point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling read.counterparty.get_customer_history or the analytics purchase tools as alternatives.

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