Детали терминала

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Полная карточка' and the listed output fields indicate a read-style retrieval, but the description does not disclose error behavior, auth expectations, or confirm absence of side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core concept 'Полная карточка терминала' is front-loaded, and the following field list adds concrete value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description provides enough return context by naming key fields (webhook, success/error pages, allowed domains). It does not mention error cases or explicitly relate to list/update siblings, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 input schema fully documents the single required parameter 'id' with a helpful clarification ('field id, not publicId'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the resource as a terminal and specifies the scope as 'Полная карточка терминала' (full terminal card) with concrete fields: webhook address, success/error pages, and allowed domains. This is a specific, informative statement, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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 siblings like wata_terminals_list, wata_terminal_update, or wata_terminal_rates. The description implies a detail-retrieval purpose but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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