Разрезы доходов и расходов

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope context: only actual operations and amounts in rubles. It does not describe aggregation details, response shape, or edge cases, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. Every part conveys meaningful information: period, dimensions, income/expense direction, actual operations, and currency.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the exact response structure or how the two breakdown dimensions relate to each other. It is sufficient for basic tool selection but leaves some inference needed for an agent about the returned grouping shape.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with date_from, date_to, and business all described directly in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that the tool returns monetary amounts for a period broken down by projects and counterparties, with income and expense direction. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from simple list/detail operations tools.

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 implies the tool is for viewing income/expense breakdowns by projects and counterparties and emphasizes that only actual operations are included. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings like operations_stats, operations_list, or receivables_summary, nor does it provide exclusions.

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