Документы контрагента

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about document scope and signing status, but does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or permissions beyond what annotations already imply.

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 one short, focused sentence with no filler. The important elements—one counterparty, collected documents, and signing status—are immediately visible and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple read-only list with two parameters and no output schema, and the description explains the core purpose. However, 'collected documents' is not defined, and since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what the response contains beyond signing status would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already explains counterparty_id and business adequately. The description adds little beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that the scope is one counterparty, so the 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 names the resource (documents of one counterparty) and the key attribute (signing status), which goes beyond the title. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and 'collected documents' is slightly ambiguous, so it is clear but not perfectly specified.

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 instead of sibling tools such as documents_generate or documents_send. The counterparty focus implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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