История по покупателю

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are period-bounded and amount-oriented, but says nothing about ordering, whether invoices include both issued and received, or how the limit truncates results — meaningful gaps for a history feed.

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, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the prerequisite pointer placed last where it is needed. Every sentence carries information the agent uses.

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 and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for a read-only history query; only result ordering and the distinction from adjacent analytics/reconciliation tools are unaddressed.

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 earns an extra point by documenting the provenance of the sole required parameter ('Ref_Key — из find_counterparty'), telling the agent how to obtain ref rather than leaving it to guess. Period semantics are also restated at the description level.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair: sales documents (документы реализации) and invoices for a buyer-counterparty over a period, plus what the data shows (amounts sold). The 'покупателю' scoping separates it from the mirrored read.counterparty.get_supplier_history, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 only implied by the 'за период' framing and the note that Ref_Key comes from find_counterparty, which usefully documents the prerequisite lookup chain. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. read.counterparty.get_reconciliation, read.analytics.get_deal_history, or get_supplier_history, so the agent must infer which report it needs.

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