Брокерские операции

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious traits: operation types are not a stable published enum, 0 is a special limit meaning 'all returned by the bank', and results are newest-first. This is consistent with the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint.

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: the resource is stated first, then ordering, then parameter semantics, and finally the important 'first call without filter' discovery strategy. Every sentence contributes non-duplicative value, and no phrasing is wasted.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety properties, the description handles the most important complexities: dynamic operation_type values, limit's dual request/output effect, and newest-first ordering. The main remaining gap is the unexplained source or purpose of broker_account_id, but sibling tools like invest_accounts likely supply that value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters, and it does explain limit and operation_type clearly, including the special 0 behavior and the dynamic list of observed values. However, the required broker_account_id parameter receives no explanation, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone.

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 identifies the resource (brokerage operations), the ordering behavior ('новые сверху'), and filtering limits, so an agent can infer that this tool returns a list of brokerage operations. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_operations or card_operations.

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 provides actionable in-tool usage guidance: new operations are on top, limit behaves differently when set to 0, and operation_type should be left empty first so the agent can discover available values before filtering. It does not, however, discuss when to choose this tool over related investment or operations siblings, stopping short of full guidance.

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