Детали операции кошелька

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says it returns a card of one operation by ID; it does not disclose read-only status, error behavior, ownership constraints, or return shape. This adds little beyond the tool name and title.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter get operation.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description is minimally viable for a get-by-id operation, but because there is no output schema it should have said more about what the 'card' contains and how a wallet operation differs from the sibling transaction/wallet tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'id' is described as 'Идентификатор операции'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 for full 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 'Карточка одной операции по идентификатору' clearly identifies the resource (one wallet operation) and the lookup criterion (identifier). The singular 'одной операции' distinguishes it from the plural list sibling wata_wallet_operations. It lacks an explicit verb, but the get-by-id intent is unmistakable.

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 given about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as wata_wallet_operations, wata_transaction_get, or wata_wallet_fiat_order_get. The only implied condition is that an identifier is needed, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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