Чарджбеки

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only notes cursor pagination, which is already implied by the cursorId/cursorDate parameters. It does not disclose the response shape, ordering, date-filter inclusivity, or any side effects, and the single behavioral detail adds little beyond the schema.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core operation and the notable pagination trait, making it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure, but it only says 'list with cursor pagination.' It does not clarify what fields each chargeback contains, how to/from date filters interact with pagination, or what happens when no filters are provided. For a five-parameter listing tool this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'cursor pagination' phrase, which does not exceed what the schema already documents for cursorId and cursorDate.

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 states that the tool returns a list of chargebacks and explicitly mentions cursor pagination, distinguishing it from the singular wata_chargeback_get sibling. Even though it is phrased as a noun phrase ('Список чарджбеков'), it unambiguously conveys the operation and resource.

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 versus alternatives such as wata_chargeback_get for a single chargeback or wata_transactions_list for transaction lists. There are no use-case hints, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this list endpoint is appropriate.

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