Заявки дела

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds real value by disclosing that dialog and counterparty links are conditionally hidden based on the caller's rights, and that the payload includes route, tasks, events and revision. It still omits pagination or result-size behavior, but the permission caveat is a genuine behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The structure is slightly off — it leads with the response payload rather than the action — but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does sketch the returned shape (route, tasks, events, revision), which partly covers returns. However, with 7 largely undocumented filter parameters and no usage context, an agent cannot confidently build a call from this definition alone.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 params documented), so the description must compensate — but it names no filter parameters at all beyond an oblique reference to dialog/counterparty links. Nothing explains what case/mine/search/status/overdue/dialog_id/counterparty_id actually filter.

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 names the resource (заявки) and enumerates what each request carries (маршрут, задачи, события, revision), but it never states the action — nothing says it lists/returns requests, so the agent must infer 'list' from the tool name. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling requests_get, which likely returns a single request.

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 statement of when to call this versus requests_get, requests_tasks_list, or the various filter-oriented siblings. The only conditional guidance is about permission-gated fields in the response, which is not selection guidance.

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