Прогноз остатка

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the calculation method (opening balance plus daily movement), the inclusion of planned operations, and that amounts are in rubles.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core question, immediately contrasts with statistics, and ends with the output unit. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides enough context by stating the output is in rubles and relates to daily movement. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape, but for a read-only forecast tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the general date-based movement concept, which is appropriate for the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the detail.

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 what the tool does: it forecasts how the total balance will change given planned operations, starting from the opening balance and adding daily movement. It explicitly contrasts itself with statistics by noting that the plan is included, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like operations_stats.

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 phrase 'В отличие от статистики, план сюда входит' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when planned operations should be included in the balance forecast. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the contrast with statistics is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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