Проводки документа

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses an important behavioral nuance: dimensionsStatus values distinguish 'confirmed empty' from 'cannot be determined' (not_in_schema/not_returned), which prevents the agent from misreading missing analytics as zero subconto. It also mentions the returned totals and correspondence summary; with an output schema present, the return description is partly redundant, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource definition before the field breakdown and parameter hints. Every sentence carries information, though the long run-on construction and repeated 'Только чтение' (already in annotations) cost a bit of tightness.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, it covers what the data is, how to obtain the required inputs, how to interpret the ambiguous status flag, and that it works for all document types. Remaining gaps (pagination, database default behavior beyond the schema) are minor.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the provenance of both required parameters (list_entities with class=document, and search_documents) that the schema itself does not state. It does not explain the optional database parameter, relying on the schema for that.

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 specific verb and resource: postings generated by one document (registrar) from the Хозрасчетный accounting register, broken down into Дт/Кт with account code, name, Ref_Key, subconto, amounts and totals. It also states scope ('Подходит для любого вида документа (Document_*)' and read-only), which separates it from siblings like get_account_card or get_account_turnover that are keyed by account rather than document.

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 the concrete prerequisite chain for the required arguments: documentEntity must come from list_entities (class=document) and documentRef from search_documents, and it notes applicability to any document type. It does not name an explicit alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g. per-account analysis should use get_account_card), so it's a clear context but not a full routing rule.

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