Оплаты

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the date-parsing behavior ('вчера', '-7d') and the query purpose, but does not disclose details like whether only successful payments are returned, whether results are aggregated, or any rate/auth considerations.

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?

Two purposeful sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's function and scope, the second provides concrete date syntax examples. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 combination of description and schema covers core usage: period, date formats, and client/document search. But there is no output schema, two parameters (limit, filial_code) are unexplained, and the description does not clarify how to distinguish payments from returns or debt, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent facing many payment-related siblings.

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 schema covers begin, end, and query; the description adds useful date-format semantics beyond the schema ('2026-09-06', '06.09.2026', 'вчера', '-7d'). However, limit and filial_code are left undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the 60% 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 tool as a cash-receipts/payments query resource ('Приходы денег за период') and states the kinds of questions it answers ('платил ли клиент', 'сколько пришло за неделю'). This distinguishes it from order/inventory siblings, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The intended use is clear: use this tool for payment-receipt questions over a time period, with date-filtering syntax provided. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or referral to alternatives such as smartup_orders or smartup_debt, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route simple payment queries here.

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