Сумма прописью

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds value by declaring 'Только вычисление, без сети' and disclosing the kopeck formatting trait. It stops short of describing edge cases like negative or rounding behavior, but the safety profile is fully covered.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the conversion rule and example come first, then supported currencies and the none option, then usage scope and the sibling caveat. Every sentence earns 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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden by showing the exact return shape via example and by explaining the digits-vs-words variant. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: currency=none yields a bare number without currency, and it clarifies that kopecks/центы default to digits rather than words. This goes beyond the terse schema notes.

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?

States a specific verb (Переводит) and resource (сумму в текст) with the exact output format shown by example. It clearly distinguishes itself from invoice_create/act_create by noting those already embed the amount in words.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it (договоры, расписки, платёжки) and when not to (счета и акты из invoice_create/act_create already contain it), routing the agent away from redundant calls. No inference required.

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