ОСВ по счёту

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses the underlying 1C register and virtual table, prefix expansion to every matching subaccount, total-plus-subaccount granularity, expanded balance analytics, and inclusive period boundaries. These are concrete, invocation-visible behaviors rather than repetitions of the safety 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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by precise account, balance-granularity, filtering, and date semantics in a compact block. The accounting and 1C terminology is dense but functional, with no filler or redundant discussion of read-only safety.

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?

Together with the fully described input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description supplies enough detail to construct a correctly scoped call. Its remaining gap is selection guidance: it does not explain how this aggregate report differs from get_account_card or get_balance_origin when an agent is choosing among accounting reads.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that account acts as a code prefix selecting all matching subaccounts and that the from/to dates are inclusive, although its examples, organization filter, and YYYY-MM-DD wording largely overlap with the 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 precisely identifies the artifact and scope: a turnover-balance report for an accounting account over a period, including opening and closing debit/credit balances and debit/credit movements, totaled and broken down by subaccount. This is much more specific than the title, but it does not explicitly distinguish the report from siblings such as get_account_card or get_balance_origin.

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 references to a standard ОСВ по счёту, subaccount totals, and expanded analytics establish a clear use case for obtaining period-level account balances and movements. There is no explicit when-not guidance or explanation of when another accounting read tool would be preferable.

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