Платежи родителей

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The description adds valuable context: currency normalization to rubles and the q parameter's search scope. It doesn't mention pagination or status filtering, but with annotations covering read-only behavior, the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and currency normalization, then the search hint. No fluff, efficient. Slightly lacks structure for parameter details but overall 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?

For a read-only list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, currency, and q parameter. Missing details on pagination, status filtering, date range usage, or return format. Since annotations show readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the tool is safe, but an agent might need more info on how to filter or paginate. The description is adequate for basic use but not complete for all parameters.

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 50% (q and date_to/date_from have descriptions; page, limit, status lack descriptions). The description explains the q parameter's semantics ('имя ученика, родителя или преподавателя') which goes beyond the schema's 'Имя ученика, родителя или номер заказа'—adds teacher. For other parameters, it doesn't add anything beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for 50% coverage; the description partially compensates for undocumented parameters (status, page, limit) but not fully.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Приход денег: оплаты родителей через эквайринг') and explicitly notes currency normalization ('Все суммы приводятся к рублям'). It likely differentiates from list_payouts (which is about payouts, not incoming payments), but doesn't directly name siblings. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 mentions 'Поиск по человеку — параметр q (имя ученика, родителя или преподавателя)' indicating a use case for searching. However, it doesn't specify when to use this vs list_payouts or finance_report, and doesn't mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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