Деньги на счетах и в кассе

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It goes beyond them by disclosing the aggregation buckets returned (available = 50+51+52, special = 55, inTransit = 57) and the handling of currency accounts (amount in currency), which are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise guess at.

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 definition is front-loaded with the resource and its account breakdown, then the return buckets, then the asOf rule. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only minor redundancy is the asOf explanation, which duplicates the schema property description.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame what is counted and how totals are grouped, which it does. The main residual gap is the lack of explicit guidance relative to sibling analytics tools, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the asOf end-of-day semantics (matching the schema wording) but says nothing about the database or organization parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data.

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 names the exact resource (cash and bank account balances), the source register (Хозрасчетный), and enumerates the specific accounts read (50, 51, 52, 55, 57). An agent can distinguish this snapshot-balance tool from flow-oriented siblings like get_cashflow or get_account_turnover without opening the schema.

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 opening phrase 'Сколько денег сейчас' implies a point-in-time snapshot use case, and the asOf sentence clarifies the historical variant. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_cashflow or get_account_turnover, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given, so routing must be inferred.

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