get_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that data is retrieved via OData 3.0, but does not disclose side effects, permission needs, pagination behavior beyond schema, or error handling. This is insufficient for a non-trivial tool.

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 captures the core purpose. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing opportunity to add useful context without becoming verbose.

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 and 7 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, OData syntax expectations, or how to construct effective queries. A tool of this complexity needs more context for proper 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'OData 3.0' context). Since schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 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 verb (получение/retrieving) and the resource (регистры 1С/1C registers), specifying two types (informational and accumulation). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_catalogs or get_documents, but the concept of 'register' is unique enough to provide some differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., odata_query or get_documents). There is no mention of conditions where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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