Движение денежных средств

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by specifying that only posted documents ('по проведённым') are counted and by listing the three returned aggregates; however it says nothing about currency, per-account breakdown or how unposted drafts are handled.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is computed before the filter and date hints. The date-format sentence duplicates the schema and is the only clearly dispensable line.

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 an output schema exists and all four parameters are fully described in the schema, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the posted-documents basis and the optional org filter; minor gaps remain around multi-currency and whether results are per-account or consolidated.

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 'from', 'to', 'database' and 'organization' are already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description's 'Можно ограничить организацией' and 'Период — даты YYYY-MM-DD' merely restate the schema, earning the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 resource and verb-equivalent: cash inflow and outflow over a period, computed from posted bank and cash documents, returning inflow, outflow and balance. This clearly differs from get_cash_balance (a point-in-time balance) even though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_cash_balance, get_payments_breakdown or get_account_turnover, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Only the org filter is mentioned, which is a parameter hint rather than usage guidance.

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