Группы склада

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful domain fact that groups are shared between goods and services, which clarifies the data scope, but it discloses no additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or business-context handling.

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 very short and has no filler; the second clause earns its place by defining scope. However, the initial clause largely repeats the title, and the overall text is under-specified, making it concise but not fully informative.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is relatively simple. Still, the description does not state what the tool returns, such as a list of warehouse groups, and it lacks an action verb. The missing return description is a moderate gap, though the annotations and simple schema help compensate.

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 only parameter, business, is fully described in the schema with 'Дело: название или идентификатор...', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, 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 is 'Группы склада. Общие для товаров и услуг.' It names the resource and adds a scope qualifier, but it never uses an action verb such as list or get, and the main phrase duplicates the title/name. An agent can tell it concerns warehouse groups but not what operation is actually performed.

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 phrase 'Общие для товаров и услуг' provides a minimal usage signal: these groups apply across both products and services, so the tool is relevant when such cross-cutting groups are needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like warehouse_list, warehouse_get, or counterparty_groups, nor does it mention exclusions.

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