Оборот и выручка по дням

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether this is read-only), permissions, response shape, or how from/to are used inclusively. The name implies a query but the description adds little beyond scope.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the purpose and a usage context without padding. It earns its place by hinting at graph/reconciliation use, though the phrase 'основа для графиков и сверки' is slightly promotional rather than purely functional.

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 two-parameter filter with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, so an agent might not know whether the response is a list of date-amount pairs, a map, or a series, and the description does not clarify response structure or error behavior.

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?

The input schema already documents both 'from' and 'to' with date format details at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, such as inclusivity bounds or timezone handling, but it does not need to compensate because the schema is complete.

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 states the tool returns a daily breakdown of turnover and revenue, which is a clear resource and granularity. The phrase 'по дням' distinguishes it from summary or transaction-list siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 a usage context ('основа для графиков и сверки'), indicating when the data would be needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like wata_finance_summary or wata_transactions_list, nor does it state any exclusions.

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