get_document_movements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves a list and is for analysis, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 consists of two concise sentences in Russian. It immediately states the function and adds a value statement. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal for a tool labeled 'key for accounting analysis.' It does not explain the output structure, how to interpret the list of registers, or any prerequisites. More detail would be expected for a tool of this claimed importance.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'full_name' with an example. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves a list of registers where a document makes movements (postings), using a specific verb and resource. It identifies itself as a key tool for accounting analysis, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_register_records or get_accounting_entries, which may have overlap.

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 implies usage context by calling it a key tool for accounting analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not or exclusion criteria. The context is implied but not explicit.

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