ms_get_counterparties

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by detailing the unit (kopecks) and the rubles conversion parameter. It also describes the return format. No contradictions with 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 concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the purpose first. Each sentence earns its place, providing parameter details and return format without unnecessary words. Slight pseudo-code for filter is acceptable.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers key aspects: what the tool does, how to paginate and filter, and unit conversion. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a read-only retrieval 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains all four parameters: limit/offset for pagination, filter with MoySklad syntax example, and rubles for kopeck-to-ruble conversion. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves counterparties (customers and suppliers) with balance fields in kopecks, and the name reinforces this. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other sibling tools like ms_get_documents or ms_get_products.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It only explains how to use parameters (pagination, filter, rubles) but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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