get_enters

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 only states 'List' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, return format, or any side effects. The meaning of 'enter' is partially clarified by the Russian term, but no additional behavior is described.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. Every element is essential, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context. The meaning of 'enter' is clarified with the Russian term, but there is no information about the response structure or typical usage scenarios. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, search) with 100% coverage. The description adds only the context that these are 'stock enter' documents, which is more about purpose than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline 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 tool's function: 'List stock enter (оприходование) documents.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general document listing tools like get_documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools with similar names, so it loses a point.

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: when you need to list enter documents. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of common use cases. The basic scenario is clear, but alternatives and when-not-to-use are absent.

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