Операции по счёту

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

The description reveals behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: ordering (newest on top), a header showing total operation count to detect truncation, how limit=0 returns everything, and how desc_len=0 gives full description. This is exactly the kind of practical behavior an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 description is concise, front-loaded purpose, and then cleanly separate parameter notes. It avoids repetition and every part seems useful: the first sentence defines the operation, and the following lines parameter-wise cover edge cases.

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?

Chain only handles truncation, ordering, and full description access, which is a strong foundation for a read-only operation. Still, it lacks explicit information about the period parameter (days) and the account classifier, and does not differentiate it from same-domain sibling tools that might be better used. Given the output schema and annotations cover many return-value and safety concerns, the missing pieces are small but noticeable.

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?

The description explains limit and desc_len thoroughly, including truncation semantics, but says nothing about days or account_id. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates; the remaining parameters must be inferred from their names and the title. So a mid score.

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 what the tool does: lists operations for a period, newest-on-acc. However, it does not explicitly mention account-level focus (title 'Операции по счёту' clarifies) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like card_operations or invest_operations, so it falls short of full 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there is no mention of account vs. card vs. investment operations, nor any exclusions or recommendations. The detailed parameter notes are about how to configure the call, not when it is appropriate. This is a clear gap.

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