Неоплаченные счета покупателям

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a non-obvious behavioral rule: invoices older than 90 days appear only when from is passed explicitly. It also explains how payment and shipment linkage is computed and what customerBalance is for, which the agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

It is dense but well ordered: what is returned, how status is derived, then status semantics, then period defaults and the 90-day caveat. The semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly heavy, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 analytical tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers derivation logic, status vocabulary, defaults, and the age-visibility caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: what open versus all actually select, that status is derived from payments against the invoice, and that from controls visibility of invoices older than 90 days rather than only filtering the range.

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 resource (customer invoices for a period) and the exact data returned: invoice amount, paid amount, remainder, shipped, status, and age in days. It also names the derivation sources (the «Оплата счетов» register, sales linked to the invoice), so an agent can distinguish it from aggregate siblings like get_debtors or get_sales without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit conditions: status=open (default) returns unpaid and partially paid invoices with the customer balance on account 62 for reconciliation, while all returns everything; the period is by invoice date with a default of the last 90 days. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead for aggregate debt figures, so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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