Операции по карте

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the API lacks a server-side card filter and that operations are fetched by period and filtered locally. It also explains the special semantics of limit=0 and desc_len truncation, which are not inferable from the schema or annotations. This substantially helps an agent anticipate tool behavior.

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?

Every sentence adds distinct value: the primary purpose, the server limitation, and the two non-obvious parameter behaviors are all stated in a compact, front-loaded format. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description is largely complete for the tool's operation, especially with annotations declaring readOnly/idempotent and an output schema present. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit definition of the 'days' period parameter, which is relevant to the described time filtering behavior.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter explanations. It explains card_id, limit=0 (show all), and desc_len (column width with truncation marker). However, the 'days' parameter is only indirectly referenced via 'operations for the period', leaving its exact meaning to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves transactions for a specific card, with the card strongly emphasized as 'КОНКРЕТНОЙ карте'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the general list_operations sibling by focusing on per-card filtering, and even specifies the source of card_id from list_cards().

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 explains when to use the tool: when operations for a specific card are needed. It also provides important context about the lack of server-side filtering and the client-side fallback, helping to set expectations. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools by name, but the implied use case is clear enough.

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