Траты по категориям

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title, such as how categories are aggregated, which date range applies, or what response shape to expect.

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 short, but rather than being concise it is under-specified and effectively just repeats the title. The sole phrase does not provide enough useful information to earn its place.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, this description leaves ambiguity about account scope, date handling, and the difference from siblings like operations_histogram or flows. Given the vast sibling list, an agent cannot reliably determine when to call this tool.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of account_id or days. The only meaning comes from the default value 30 and the tool name, leaving both parameters ambiguous.

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 'Траты по категориям' exactly restates the tool title, so it is a tautology rather than a proper definition. It identifies a domain (spending categories) but lacks a verb, scope, or differentiation from siblings like operations_histogram or list_operations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what input it expects, or how it differs from other spending-related tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or intended use cases are mentioned.

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