tochka_incoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds grouping behavior and credit nature, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. It is consistent with 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?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a bullet-like list of args. No wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a return note), but it's efficient for the information needed.

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 doesn't need to detail return values. It adequately covers the input parameters, grouping behavior, and use case. It is complete for the intended purpose, though it could mention the grouping more prominently.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so clearly: month (1-12), year (e.g., 2026), inn (optional filter with example), description (optional substring filter case-insensitive). The examples and type info add significant value beyond the schema's basic type/default.

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 retrieves incoming (Credit) bank transactions grouped by debtor INN for a given month, with a specific use case for tax reports. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tochka_card_transactions', 'tochka_statements_list', etc.

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 a clear use case ('useful for tax reports') and indicates the tool filters by month/year and optionally by INN/description. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though the context is adequate.

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