Разбивка продаж за период

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 the non-obvious constraint that only *posted* realizations are summed, meaning drafts are excluded from totals, which materially affects interpretation of results. It does not discuss grouping/null-counterparty handling or the limit's truncation effect, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 operation, then filters, then example questions, then the date format — a logical order with little waste. The date-format sentence ('Период — даты YYYY-MM-DD') duplicates the schema pattern and descriptions, so one clause could be dropped.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the aggregation semantics, filter surface, and date format for a 9-parameter tool. The main omission is how limit interacts with grouped results and whether totals are truncated when groups exceed the limit.

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, and the description largely restates groupBy modes and counterpartyKind values that the schema enumerates. It adds no meaning for limit, organization, database, or the Ref_Key filters beyond what the schema says, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Суммирует проведённые реализации (СуммаДокумента) за период') plus the four possible aggregation axes (counterparty/month/contract/total), which lets an agent separate it from the flat sibling get_sales. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The four example questions ('топ покупателей за год', 'выручка по месяцам', 'сколько продали ИП', 'продажи по конкретному договору') map directly to groupBy/filter combinations and give strong when-to-use context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_sales for raw rows), so it stops short of a 5.

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