Сводка долгов

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful computation semantics: aging is calculated from the transaction date and amounts are normalized to rubles. This goes beyond annotations and helps interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core output (who owes whom) and then the aging breakdown and currency normalization. No filler or redundant statements.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the result shape: counterparty direction, aging categories, and currency normalization. Missing details like output formatting are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and already fully documents the optional business parameter, including default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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 what the tool produces: an accounts receivable/payable summary with aging buckets (not due, 1–30, 31–60, 61–90, 90+ days). It is specific enough to be distinguished from the sibling receivables_counterparty by its aging breakdown, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 intended use case is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as receivables_counterparty or operations_stats. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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