Данные для акта сверки

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: only accounts with movements or balances appear in accounts, advance offsetting within the same counterparty is excluded from lines to mirror the 1C act, and printNumber is the number as it appears in the printed form. It does not mention performance, volume limits, or empty-result behavior, but the interpretive context it supplies is substantial.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense semicolon-separated structure packs a lot of useful detail without filler. The final sentence about the print form is short and sets a real expectation. It is long, but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 six-parameter read tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete: scope, account coverage, exclusion rules and counterpartyRef provenance are all present. The row-level return explanation is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but it is harmless and reinforces interpretation.

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%, and the description largely repeats what the schema already documents (counterpartyRef sourced from find_counterparty, contractRef limited to a single contract, organization filter). The one marginal addition is the explicit 'only one contract' limitation on contractRef, which the schema already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: settlements with a counterparty for a period, for a reconciliation act. It goes further by naming the accounting scope (accounts 60, 62 and 76 excluding 76.АВ/76.ВА) and the exact output rows (opening/closing balances, document lines, turnover, contract breakdown), which clearly separates it from sibling reads like get_account_turnover or get_debtors.

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 makes the intended use case clear (data for a reconciliation act) and routes the agent to find_counterparty for the counterpartyRef value, plus a constraint that contractRef accepts only one contract. It also sets an expectation boundary by stating the actual 'Акт сверки' print form is generated in 1C, so the agent won't expect this tool to produce it. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer an alternative tool.

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