Отчёт по продажам

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a 'свод' (summary), which is a mild behavioral hint. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like result size, aggregation details, or any performance caveats. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the minimal additional context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and grouping options; the second provides concrete query examples and date formats. No filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and invocation.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It explains what questions the tool answers but not the exact structure of the returned report (e.g., fields like revenue, quantity, date). This could lead to ambiguity about expected output. The examples partially compensate, but for a complex tool like this, a bit more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 high (83%), so the description doesn't need to explain every parameter. It does add valuable examples for date formats ('06.09.2026', 'вчера', '-7d') that are not in schema, and clarifies the group_by options in natural language. However, this is minor enrichment; the description doesn't provide deeper semantics beyond what schema already offers. Baseline 3 is justified.

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 it's a sales summary over a period with breakdowns by client, product, or day. It uses a specific verb 'свод' (summary) and resource 'продажи', and gives concrete example questions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartup_orders (individual orders) and smartup_products (catalog), making its purpose unmistakably unique.

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 description provides explicit usage context with example queries ('что продавалось лучше всего', 'сколько отгрузили за месяц', 'кто крупнейший клиент'). It also gives date format examples, helping the agent understand input. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the nature of a sales report implies it's for aggregated metrics rather than transactional detail, and sibling names suggest alternatives. Overall, solid guidance.

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