Группы контрагентов

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the conceptual context that counterparties are organized into groups per case. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response shape or completeness, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 one-sentence description is compact and leads with the core concept 'Группы'. It contains no redundant words, though it is an elliptical noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural clarity.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys enough about what is returned: the groups by which a case's counterparties are arranged. Parameter defaults are covered by the schema, and nothing critical is missing for a basic call.

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 fully documents the single optional business parameter with 100% coverage, including default behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the exact resource: groups into which a case's counterparties are classified, which is distinct from sibling tools like counterparties_list. It is clear but lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so it does not fully meet the specific-verb standard.

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 about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as counterparties_list or warehouse_groups. The only usage hint is the optional business parameter in the schema, not in the description, so an agent receives no explicit routing information.

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