Account details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: the account is bound to an environment variable and cannot be chosen per call, and it also reports apiPointBalance with a quota reset schedule. This gives the agent practical behavioral knowledge not available in the structured fields.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it returns, how the account is fixed, what it does not include, and a bonus note about apiPointBalance. No wasted words, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the returned fields, explains the account binding, explicitly excludes money and campaign data, and adds an extra behavior (apiPointBalance) with quota timing. The agent has everything needed to use the tool correctly and decide when to call it.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments' and explains why (the account is fixed), which is helpful but not strictly necessary given the schema. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description does not add further parameter-level detail but adequately clarifies the absence.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'legal details of the ad account this server is bound to', followed by an explicit list of fields (inn, kpp, ogrn, etc.). It also distinguishes from siblings by stating it carries no money figures (use get_balance) and no campaign data, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidance: it takes no arguments because the account is fixed by AVITO_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID, and it explicitly points to get_balance for money figures while excluding campaign data. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to choose an alternative.

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