Долг контрагента

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the output composition (planned operations, amounts, terms) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or data freshness. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and content, the second gives an actionable cross-reference to operations_settle. There is no filler or 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?

For a simple read-only detail tool, the description is complete: it identifies the selected counterparty, states what the response contains, and routes the settling action to the correct sibling. The input schema and annotations cover parameters and safety behavior, so no critical information is missing despite the absence of an output schema.

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 counterparty_id and business are already documented, including the default-business behavior. The description does not add further parameter-level details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 action and resource: it details a debt for a single counterparty and shows the planned operations, amounts, and terms that compose it. It also positions itself as the read-side counterpart to operations_settle, which separates it from the mutation sibling.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool fits (one counterparty debt detail) and gives a when-not instruction: to settle a specific line, use operations_settle. This is clear routing for an agent choosing between tools.

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