История заявок в ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope (only the current user's own requests) and the returned field set, but says nothing about ordering, page size behavior, or the fact that results are capped at 500 despite claiming 'всех' requests.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the practical reason to call it. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so thoroughly via the field list plus status examples. Remaining gaps — ordering, truncation at limit 500, pagination — are modest for a read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety.

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?

Only one optional parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage and its own description, so the schema does the work. The description's 'Список всех' arguably works against the limit parameter without clarifying its effect, adding no positive semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (ELK requests) with an initial enumeration of returned fields: number, content, service, status, dates, executor, link. The purpose is unambiguous, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from neighbor tools such as elk_search_services or elk_get_notifications, which an agent must infer.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario — checking the status of previously submitted appeals (certificates, scholarships, military registration) without opening the web UI. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended context is clear enough to select the tool confidently.

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