get_fine_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the grouping dimensions (contracts and months) and the date format. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor what response shape or error behavior to expect.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose and one for date format, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Both sentences add value and the key detail about date format is placed directly after the purpose.

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 simple three-parameter read-oriented tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is returned (fine detailization by contracts and months) and how to format dates. It stops short of describing the exact output fields or edge-case behavior, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by tying personal_account to the subject of the detailization and explicitly documenting date_from/date_to as dd.MM.yyyy. It does not clarify whether dates are inclusive or what format personal_account should take, but the main semantics are covered.

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 the resource: a breakdown of penalties (пеней) for a personal account over a period, grouped by contracts and months. It distinguishes the tool's focus from general debt or bill tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not directly reference sibling alternatives.

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 implied: call this tool when fine/penalty detailization for a personal account over a date range is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related debt or bill information.

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