Перевод по реквизитам юрлицу

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

The annotations say only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description goes far beyond them: it reveals the built-in confirmation button, failure behavior without elicitation, pre-send bank validation, NDS '322' default logic, and the semantics of force=True. These are operational traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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, structured into scannable blocks, and front-loaded with the most critical warning 'REAL MONEY'. There is no filler; each sentence adds concrete operational information.

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 complex, destructive 14-parameter money-moving tool, this description is unusually complete: it covers confirmation flow, error cases, default rules, formatting constraints, and even which companion tools to call (payment_qr, payment_receipt, list_accounts). The output schema already exists, so the explicit mention of paymentId is a bonus.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it mostly does: it manually documents qr, account_number, bik, inn, name, corr_account, bank_name, comment, amount, nds, personal_account, from_account, and force. The only unexplained parameter is kpp, which remains ambiguous for a legal-entity payment tool.

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 specific verb and resource: a transfer to a legal entity or individual entrepreneur using bank requisites (BIK + account + INN). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like transfer or transfer_sbp_resolve, which use other payment channels.

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 strong process guidance: show requisites first, use payment_qr for QR-based payments, and only set force after the user has verified the money did not leave the app. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool, but the context of 'transfer to legal entity by requisites' is clear enough.

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