Детали чарджбека

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what happens if the ID is not found, or what the response contains. The phrase 'по идентификатору' merely repeats the parameter name and adds no behavioral detail. This is severely lacking.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID tool, though it could have included a bit more substance without sacrificing brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should clarify what the tool returns and any additional behavior. It does not mention the return format, whether it returns a single chargeback object, or any error handling. The agent is left to assume it returns chargeback details, which is somewhat inferred from the title and sibling list, but the description itself is incomplete for a tool in a large API surface.

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% for the only parameter 'id', which already has a clear description ('Идентификатор чарджбека'). The tool description adds nothing beyond 'по идентификатору', which is essentially a restatement of the schema. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no additional semantic value.

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 'Карточка чарджбека по идентификатору' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a chargeback's details by its ID. It uses a specific resource (chargeback) and a clear lookup verb (implied by 'карточка' and 'по идентификатору'). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling list tool (wata_chargebacks_list) or otherwise differentiate itself beyond the by-ID scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid chargeback ID), and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list. This is a clear gap for a get-by-ID tool.

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