Документы клиента

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds substantial extra context: the data store contains documents belonging to relatives, they are filtered out by date of birth by default, and include_others=True changes their visibility. This subtle behavior is essential for correct invocation and is not derivable from the schema or 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 compact and front-loaded: it first enumerates supported document kinds, then explains parameter behavior, and finally reveals the subtle relatives filtering edge case. Every sentence carries meaningful information and there is minimal non-content language.

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 sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. It covers the document types, filtering semantics, and the unusual relatives-filtering behavior, leaving little room for an agent to misinvoke the tool.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: kind is a filter by name or code, with examples and an 'empty = all' rule, and include_others is the flag that surfaces relatives' documents. There is no ambiguity left about the meaning of the two arguments.

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 identifies the resource by listing concrete client document types (паспорт, СНИЛС, ИНН, ПТС/СТС, etc.) and explains the filtering capability. It does not use an explicit imperative verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so the exact action is slightly inferred rather than stated.

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 through the parameter explanations: kind filters by name or code with an explicit default of all documents, and include_others proactively shows relatives' documents when true. However, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools such as bank_documents or any when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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