ms_get_turnover

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: return format (JSON with meta/rows), pagination support, and the kopecks-to-rubles conversion. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand behavior.

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 structured with clear sections for arguments and return value. While it contains many details, every sentence contributes useful information. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description's mention of the return format is sufficient. It covers the key aspects: report period, pagination, and unit conversion. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage without significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters: moment_from/moment_to as date strings, limit/offset for pagination, and rubles for conversion. It adds meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 it retrieves turnover by product with opening/income/outcome/closing quantities and money. The verb 'get' and resource 'turnover' are specific, and the naming distinguishes it from sibling tools like ms_get_stock or ms_get_profit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ms_get_profit or ms_get_stock. It only describes what the tool does without contextual comparison.

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