Список операций

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a valuable runtime behavior: the response is paginated and tells which next page to request. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: scope and filters, pagination behavior, and status enum meanings. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns 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?

With the schema covering parameter details and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing runtime behavior (pagination). For a filtered-list tool this is sufficient for selection and invocation, even without an output schema.

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 fully documents all 12 parameters. The description mentions the filter dimensions and status meanings but adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a list of operations ('Операции дела') and enumerates the available filters (dates, type, account, project, counterparty, status), so an agent can distinguish it from operations_get/save/delete. However, it relies on the title for the 'list' verb and does not explicitly contrast a sibling like operations_get.

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 intended use as a paginated list with many filters is implied, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor a named alternative. An agent must infer that operations_get is for a single operation and operations_stats for aggregates.

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