Пени и проценты за просрочку

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the annotations already establish that this is a safe, external-data-reading operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the output includes a total and a breakdown by rate periods, and it includes a legal disclaimer that it does not replace a lawyer.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains appropriately sized for a specialized legal-financial calculator. The legal disclaimer earns its place in this domain, and there is little redundant phrasing.

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 there is no output schema, the description states the key return shape (total and breakdown by rate periods). It covers the calculation methods and legal caveat, and the schema handles parameter details. Minor gaps such as rounding or data-source specifics do not prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain meaning beyond the schema by giving concrete examples of fraction denominators (1/300 for certain utility and tax penalties, 1/150 for organizations after 30 days) and by clarifying the legal basis behind the method choices.

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 names a specific verb and resource: calculating late-payment penalties using the Central Bank key rate, with two distinct legal methods (Article 395 interest and fraction-based penalties). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling rate-history and conversion tools, even without naming them explicitly.

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 explains the legal contexts for the two methods, which implies when each applies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cbr_key_rate or cbr_rate_history. Usage is inferable from the stated purpose rather than directly guided.

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