Оборот и выручка за период

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned (turnover and revenue per currency) but does not explain what 'оборот' and 'выручка' include (e.g., refunds, fees), timezone handling, rounding, or the response structure. No mention of pagination or limits since it's a summary, but still lacking operational details.

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 with no filler. It states the core function immediately and nothing more, which is appropriately concise for a simple aggregate tool.

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 tool with only two date parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it tells the agent the tool returns a summary by currency. However, given the large set of finance-related siblings (e.g., wata_finance_daily, wata_terminals_finance, wata_transactions_list), it lacks clarity on scope (merchant-level vs terminal-level) and how this differs from those alternatives, which is a notable gap.

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 schema describes both parameters with clear format hints ('Конец периода, YYYY-MM-DD' and 'Начало периода, YYYY-MM-DD'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add param details, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already provides sufficient semantics for an agent to pass correct values.

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 returns 'Суммарный оборот и выручка мерчанта за период, по валютам' (total turnover and revenue for the merchant over a period, by currency). This is a specific verb (return/summarize) + resource (merchant finance) + scope (period, currency), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like wata_transactions_list (detailed list) and wata_finance_daily (daily breakdown) by being an aggregate summary.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_finance_daily, wata_transactions_list, or wata_terminals_finance. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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