Статистика движения денег

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: transfers are excluded because they don't change total amounts, and all sums are converted to rubles at the CBR exchange rate. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's data treatment.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, data scope, exclusions, and currency normalization. Every sentence earns its place, and the main function is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only statistics tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the output concept (daily income/expenses) and important data semantics. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the annotations and simple return concept make this acceptable.

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%, with all three parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific information, but such compensation is unnecessary given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's resource and output: 'Доходы и расходы по дням за период' (income and expenses by day for a period). It also adds scope by restricting to actual operations and excluding transfers. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like operations_list or operations_breakdowns, so it misses the top score.

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 clear context about what data is included (actual operations only) and excluded (transfers), and implies this is the tool for daily income/expense statistics. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any when-not conditions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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