Финансовый отчёт (P&L, движение денег)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that periods are calendar-based (week starts Monday, month starts first), which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe output format or default behavior when optional months are omitted.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the report types and period rules. All information is front-loaded and every 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?

For a read-only report tool with three parameters (one required), the description covers report selection and period semantics. It does not mention default ranges or output structure, but given the annotations and that there is no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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%, but the description enriches meaning by clarifying the report enum (pnl, cashflow, cohorts) and explaining that periods are calendar-based, which the schema descriptions only hint at via YYYYMM format. This adds value beyond the structured schema.

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 tool provides summary financial reports (p&l, cash flow, cohorts), distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are all list/get operations. The verb 'Сводные' (summarize) plus specific report types makes the purpose unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 implies usage for financial reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no sibling tools are financial in nature, the context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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