Данные терминала для вывода

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read-only operation via 'информация', but it does not mention authentication needs, what the query can affect, return structure, or any limitations.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded.

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 an info tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an opaque query object, this description is under-specified. It does not explain how to identify the terminal, what the query should contain, or what data will be returned, leaving the agent unable to invoke it reliably.

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 single 'query' parameter is described only as 'Параметры запроса' with additionalProperties allowed, which is a placeholder rather than real documentation. The tool description adds no guidance about what fields or values should be supplied, so an agent cannot construct a meaningful request.

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 states that the tool returns information about the terminal involved in fiat withdrawal, which identifies a specific resource and distinguishes it from general terminal tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'информация о...' clearly implies a retrieval operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool should be used when information about the terminal tied to fiat withdrawal is needed. No explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related siblings such as wata_terminal_get, wata_wallet_withdrawal_methods, or wata_wallet_withdrawal_limits is provided.

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