ozon_finance_accruals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only conveys a daily time grain and gives no information about return shape, read-only behavior, pagination, or limitations. The agent is left to infer even that this is a retrieval operation.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The Russian parenthetical may help human users, but the fragment does not form a complete tool description and lacks the details that would make the short form useful.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it doesn't say what an accrual record looks like, that a specific date is required, or what the API returns. It is minimally callable with a date, but an agent is not equipped to interpret the result.

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 only parameter, date, already has a clear format (YYYY-MM-DD). The description's 'daily' loosely reinforces that date selects a day, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 is a noun fragment, 'Daily accruals (начисления),' that essentially restates the tool name (ozon_finance_accruals) and adds only the word 'daily.' It lacks any verb such as get/list/query, so it does not clearly state the operation the tool performs. It also doesn't differentiate this from the many other finance siblings like ozon_finance_transactions or ozon_finance_accrual_types.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the other finance reports. With siblings like transactions, totals, balance, mutual_settlement, and cash_flow, an agent has no basis to decide this is the right one.

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