Сводка по школе

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining calendar-based week and month boundaries, which is not in the annotations or schema. It does not contradict annotations and provides a small but meaningful additional behavioral detail.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists sections and period semantics. It avoids fluff and uses space well, though the long list of section names makes it dense. It could be split into a purpose line and parameter details, but it is still appropriately concise.

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 description covers the purpose, available sections, and period semantics, but it does not describe the shape of the output or what values are returned (e.g., a single aggregated number, a table, or a summary object). With no output schema present, an agent cannot fully predict the response format, which is a notable gap for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing Russian labels for each section enum (e.g., finance = деньги) and clarifying that week/month periods are calendar-based, which helps an agent map enum values to semantics and select appropriate periods.

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 the tool shows 'main indicators for the period' and enumerates ten specific sections (finance, funnel, retention, etc.), making its purpose clear as an aggregated dashboard. It is not a tautology and provides enough specificity to distinguish it from individual list tools such as list_payments or get_lead, though it does not explicitly contrast with finance_report.

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 explains calendar period semantics (week starts Monday, month from the 1st) and lists available sections, which helps an agent choose correct parameter values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like finance_report or list_payments, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions for using period=custom with dateFrom/dateTo beyond what the schema implies.

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