Продажи за период

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only POSTED (проведённым) sales documents are counted, and the sum is taken on a specific field (СуммаДокумента), which defines exactly what the aggregate includes and excludes. It does not state currency or how period boundaries are treated (inclusive/exclusive), which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Three short sentences with the metric definition front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and the date format constraint. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the YYYY-MM-DD restatement partially duplicates the schema pattern.

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 read-only aggregate with an output schema, the description covers what is summed, over which documents, over which period, and with which optional filter — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around currency and boundary inclusivity, but nothing blocking given the rich schema.

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%, with from/to, database and organization all documented in the schema, including the date pattern. The description reinforces the YYYY-MM-DD requirement and the fact that omitting organization means all organizations, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 concrete metric and scope: total revenue from posted sales documents for a period, computed on the СуммаДокумента field, optionally narrowed by organization. That is a specific verb-plus-resource statement an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling read.analytics.get_sales_breakdown, so an agent cannot tell which sales tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing (aggregate revenue over a period), and the optional organization filter is flaggable from the text. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the sibling get_sales_breakdown for per-dimension breakdowns, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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