Движения по сделке/договору

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: results are chronological, they include aggregated totals and a closing balance, and dealKey is matched as a server-side substringof over the payment-purpose text (implying possible partial/false-positive matches). It does not mention result ordering guarantees, truncation at limit, or how the default database is resolved.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter constraints. Almost every clause earns its place (the dealKey example, the mutual-exclusivity rule, the optional period default). Minor density issue: the dealKey explanation is packed into a parenthetical that takes a second read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still summarizes them. The cross-field 'exactly one of' constraint, the optional period default, the default database, and the organization filter scoping are all covered. The only gap is behavior at the limit boundary (default 200, max 1000, truncation), which the schema documents but the description does not acknowledge.

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 would be 3. The description still adds meaning: it explains what dealKey actually is (a bank identifier appearing in the payment purpose, with a concrete example) and that contractRef is the Ref_Key of a contract obtained via find_counterparty. That is interpretive context beyond the schema's one-line parameter notes.

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 a specific verb+resource: the chronological list of bank and cash movements for one deal or contract, including inflows, outflows, totals and balance. That is far more than a restatement of the name. What it lacks is an explicit contrast with closely related analytics siblings (get_cashflow, get_payments_breakdown, get_document_postings), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 states a hard selection rule that the schema cannot express: exactly one of dealKey or contractRef must be supplied, and the period is optional (all time by default). It also hints that contractRef comes from find_counterparty plus a contract, which routes the agent to a prerequisite tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement against sibling analytics tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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