Кредиторская задолженность

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the sign convention that drives the result: credit balance is our debt, debit balance is our prepayment and is netted out, and only positive debt is returned. It does not cover performance characteristics or how large result sets behave, but the domain semantics are unusually well explained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then parameter guidance in descending importance. The semicolon-chained clauses make it dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information rather than restating the title.

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 seven-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the accounting semantics, filtering behavior, and scope exclusions that structured fields cannot express. The only gap is the phantom olderThanYear reference, which is not backed by the schema and slightly undermines trust in the parameter list.

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, and the description adds real meaning: asOf is defined as the end-of-day balance, aging is spelled out as maturity buckets plus payment dates, and overdueOnly is stated to imply aging. It loses a point for describing olderThanYear, which does not exist in the input schema and could mislead an agent into passing an unsupported argument.

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?

States a precise verb-and-resource: the balance of account 60 (supplier settlements) from the Хозрасчетный accounting register, broken down by counterparty. It also names the boundary case explicitly (account 76 for rent/telecom is not included), which lets an agent separate it from read.accounting.get_account_turnover and the receivables sibling read.analytics.get_debtors.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use routing for each mode: aging=true for maturity buckets and payment dates, overdueOnly=true for overdue only, and an explicit when-not (account 76 items belong in ОСВ по счёту 76). It even warns that olderThanYear debt is often unsettled netting rather than real liability, which is exactly the interpretive guidance an agent needs.

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