Проверка закрытия месяца

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavior: six check categories, possible statuses (ok/warning/error/not_applicable/skipped), explanation and row limits, closingCreatedAt semantics, analyticsRefs mapping, and the caveat that regulatory operation Posted=false is normal. This is substantial context for interpreting results.

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 dense but front-loaded and organized with numbered checks. It is appropriately sized for a complex multi-check tool, though some output-navigation details could be considered lengthy for a single paragraph.

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's complexity, the description is complete: it explains the checks, result statuses, caveats, and reference navigation. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values further, and it already provides enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so baseline is at least 3. The description adds some interpretive meaning by referring to month-level checks and explaining related output fields, but it does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: it checks month-close accounting via six explicit checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by focusing exclusively on month-close validation, and the enumerated checks make the scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear context for use: an accountant reviewing the month before reporting and after closing. It also states an important boundary — read-only, cannot close the month through OData — but does not explicitly name alternative tools for related tasks.

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