Отчёт по получателям рассылки

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context. It mentions that the panel handles filters and pages, which is vague and slightly at odds with the schema's own filter/pagination params (q, case, limit, offset), and says nothing about ordering, response shape, or access requirements.

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 first sentence is short and front-loads the essential outcome. However, the second sentence about the panel handling filters and pages is ambiguous and arguably redundant given the schema exposes filter and pagination parameters, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 read-only report with no output schema, the description does sketch what is returned (delivery status plus reasons), and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing are usage context versus sibling broadcast tools and any parameter clarification, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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 67% (offset and status undocumented), which is below the 80% threshold where the schema alone justifies a baseline 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all—no explanation of the q/case/status filters, the mandatory broadcast identifier, or the panel-handling note's relation to limit/offset.

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?

Together with the title ('Отчёт по получателям рассылки'), the description 'Кому дошло, кому нет и почему' clearly conveys a broadcast-recipient delivery report showing who received, who failed, and why. The purpose is understandable, but the description itself names neither the verb (report/list) nor the resource (broadcast recipients), and it does not distinguish this from siblings like broadcasts_get or broadcasts_list.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative tool such as broadcasts_get or broadcasts_list. The only guideline-like sentence ('Фильтры и страницы обрабатывает панель') describes filtering/pagination handling, not selection criteria.

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