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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'calculates metrics', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether there are any side effects, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally fine. However, it is under-informative; it does not earn its place by conveying substantial meaning, but it is not overly verbose either.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only a vague one-sentence description, the tool is not adequately described. The agent lacks information about return values, usage context, and behavior, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is only 50% (limit and rrdid are undocumented). The tool adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent unsure about the purpose of limit and rrdid.

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 states a specific verb ('calculates') and resource ('report metrics'), so it has some clarity. However, 'основные метрики' (main metrics) is vague and does not specify which metrics, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like getTotalCommissionByPeriod or getReportDetailByPeriod.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is the appropriate choice.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose return format, permissions, or any side effects. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It wastes no words and is appropriately 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or expected behavior, but it does not. The tool is simple, but the lack of response format details leaves a significant gap for the agent.

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%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 uses a specific verb 'downloads' and clearly states the resource 'one document from the seller's document list'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'downloadDocumentsAll' by emphasizing 'one' document, making the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this when you need a single document, as opposed to all documents (sibling downloadDocumentsAll). However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of downloading multiple documents and does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, return format, or error handling for the batch operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core function without redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (batch operation with array input) and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks return value details, usage examples, and edge-case behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0% at the top level, and the tool description adds no parameter information. Although the schema includes descriptions for 'serviceName' and 'extension', the description does not compensate for the low coverage or clarify how to use the 'params' array structure.

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 downloads several documents from the seller's document list, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the singular sibling 'downloadDocument' by indicating it handles multiple documents, but does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 for batch document downloads via the phrase 'several documents', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'downloadDocument' or provide any exclusions. Usage context is present but only implicitly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is only a noun phrase and discloses no behavioral traits, side effects, or return characteristics.

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 a single concise phrase with no filler. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, making it not appropriately sized.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is too sparse to convey the full context. The tool has four parameters and two required inputs, but the description does not explain its behavior, output, or relation to sibling tools.

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 schema describes dateFrom and dateTo as RFC3339, but limit and rrdid lack descriptions, leaving 50% coverage. The description itself provides zero parameter semantics, so agents have no help understanding limit or rrdid.

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 states 'Weekly report on sales and commissions,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getTotalCommissionByPeriod or getReportDetailByPeriod, which overlap in domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it is a read-only operation, required permissions, or any side effects. For a simple getter, it is minimally acceptable but leaves the agent without safety or side-effect information.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler content. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. The description lacks information about return format, pagination, or how the categories should be used in conjunction with other tools. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is incomplete.

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 schema has one optional parameter (locale) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states it provides document categories for obtaining a seller's document list, which identifies the resource and purpose. However, the verb 'provides' is generic and could be more specific, though it does distinguish from sibling tools like getDocumentList.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getDocumentList or downloadDocumentsAll. The description implies it is a preliminary step but does not explicitly say so.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, filtering, return format, authentication requirements, or whether it returns metadata rather than file content. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but nothing further is disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is too terse for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, and it lacks structural elements like usage context or parameter overview.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It provides only a one-line summary and fails to explain return values, filtering, sorting, pagination, or any behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds no information about the 7 parameters. The schema provides descriptions for 4 of them (beginTime, endTime, category, serviceName) but leaves sort, order, and locale undocumented. With 57% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention any parameters at all.

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 says 'Метод предоставляет список документов продавца' (Method provides a list of seller's documents), which clearly states the verb (provides) and resource (list of documents). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like downloadDocumentsAll or getDocumentCategories, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the method does, without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like downloadDocumentsAll or getReportDetailByPeriod.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rate limit (1 request per minute) and data availability from a specific date, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or the structure of the response, leaving some gaps.

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 moderately sized with clear sections (Important, Limitation) and useful links. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the structure aids scannability. It is slightly lengthy due to URLs but remains focused.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, but the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds context about weekly reports and rate limits, yet lacks guidance on pagination using 'rrdid' and does not describe the response format. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it neither improves nor degrades this dimension.

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 'provides details to [weekly sales reports]', identifying the specific resource and operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getTotalCommissionByPeriod, but the term 'details' helps distinguish it from other report-related tools.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions data availability and a rate limit, but these are constraints, not usage scenarios. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite limit/rrdid parameters), response format, authorization needs, or any side effects. The one-line phrase leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool executes.

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 a single concise phrase with no filler, but it's under-specified – it reads like a title rather than a functional description. It's appropriately short but lacks structure that would help an agent parse key information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or what the calculation includes beyond the bare concept. This is a significant gap for a non-trivial reporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the calculation behavior, but the schema is sufficient on its own.

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 calculates deductions (commissions) for WB plus VAT over a period, using a specific verb ('Подсчёт') and resource. It conveys the core function and differentiates from generic report tools like getReportDetailByPeriod, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as calculateReportMetrics or getReportDetailByPeriod. The description merely states what it does without indicating selection criteria or prerequisites.

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