Остатки товаров

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add domain context — and it does: which accounting accounts are the source, that results are aggregated by nomenclature, that quantity and amount are returned, and a useful 1C-specific caveat that BP 3.0 keeps stock on accounting accounts rather than a separate balance register. It does not discuss pagination behavior of limit or result size trade-offs, which keeps it below 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?

The first sentence front-loads the resource and data source; return values, then the optional filters, then the asOf mode follow in a logical order. The trailing parenthetical about BP 3.0 accounting is useful context but could arguably be trimmed; overall there is little waste.

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, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it still summarizes them (quantity and amount). It covers data source, defaults, one optional filter, and the point-in-time mode, which is sufficient for a zero-required-parameter read tool; only result-size/pagination expectations are left implicit.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including asOf's date format, the organization filter options, database selection and the limit bounds. The description adds a use-case rationale for asOf (inventory/audit) and restates the organization filter, but supplies no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (goods/materials balances in warehouses), the data source (balances of accounts 41/10/43 in the Хозрасчетный register) and the grouping (by nomenclature), which lets an agent separate it from siblings like get_account_turnover or get_cash_balance. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it replaces, so it lands at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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 the default behavior (current balances) and the condition that selects the alternative mode: asOf=YYYY-MM-DD for inventory counts or audits. It also notes the filter is optional (organization narrows results). No explicit 'use X instead' routing and no prerequisites are given, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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