Акт выполненных работ (PDF)

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

Annotations declare it is a write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context: requisites are validated by checksums, bank details are optional for an act, the tool writes a file to disk and needs no network, and it returns a file path, totals and the PDF. However, idempotency/non-destructiveness and the write nature are already carried by annotations, so the added value is useful but not exhaustive (no overwrite/conflict behavior).

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?

A single dense but front-loaded block: creation purpose first, contents next, usage and routing to the sibling after, then behavior and return values. Every sentence carries weight, though the run-on semicolon structure is slightly heavy.

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?

For a mutation tool with nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is produced, when to use it, validation behavior, that bank details are optional, that it writes to disk, and what it returns. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and every parameter, including nested seller/buyer and item fields, is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantics beyond that — that bank data is not required for the act and that items may be reused from invoice_create — without contributing format or validation detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (creates an act of completed works as PDF) and enumerates the document contents (executor, customer, basis, period, services table, VAT total, amount in words, signature blocks). It explicitly differentiates itself from its sibling by naming invoice_create as the tool that issues invoices instead.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition — 'закрывающий документ после оплаты или выполнения работ' — and names the alternative tool (invoice_create) with the note that the same line items can be reused. No inference is required to choose between them.

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