Перевод денег

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is a real-money destructive operation that requires a button confirmation, that a client without elicitation will receive a refusal, that recipient resolution can be automatic and may return RECIPIENT_MULTIPLE_BANKS, and that force=True retries only after the user has verified the money did not leave. This is exactly the beyond-schema behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long but dense and front-loaded. The critical warning about actual money and button-based confirmation appears first; subsequent sentences handle defaults, edge cases, alternative tools, and failure modes. There is no filler — every sentence contributes operational meaning or a routing decision.

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?

Given that this is a real-money destructive operation with 9 parameters, the description covers the majority of decision points: when to call, how confirmation works, what defaults and failure states look like, how to route the recipient, what not to use, and how to get the receipt after calling. The description fully compensates for the thin schema and provides critical context beyond the annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it largely does. It explains the semantics of from_account (default rubbing Current account), to_account, pointer_link_id, bank_member_id, provider variants, description, and force. However, amount and masked_fio receive no explicit treatment, and the valid provider set is only partially implied rather than fully enumerated.

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 clearly states this is an actual money transfer tool: «Перевод (РЕАЛЬНЫЕ ДЕНЬГИ)». It defines the core action, the confirmation mechanism, and explicitly separates itself from related tools like transfer_requisites and transfer_sbp_resolve. It also explains what this tool is not for — legal-entity payments and inner transfers — so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: call when amount and recipient are known, not before elicitation; use transfer_requisites for legal entities/individual entrepreneurs; do not use for inner-account transfers. It also names the alternative tools (transfer_requisites, payment_qr, transfer_sbp_resolve) and specific conditions that route to them.

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