Реквизиты аккаунта

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the account is server-bound, the call accepts no arguments, the response includes apiPointBalance with a weekly quota reset, and the response excludes monetary and campaign data.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and fields, the second covers argument policy, and the third handles exclusions and quota behavior. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates the returned fields, notes the universal apiPointBalance field, and explicitly states what the response does not contain, so an agent can invoke it and interpret the result correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description goes further by explaining why no arguments exist: the account is set in AVITO_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID and cannot be selected per call. This prevents an agent from inventing parameters and clarifies the environment-based configuration.

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 starts with a specific verb and object: it returns the legal requisites of the server-bound advertising account, and it enumerates the exact fields (inn, kpp, ogrn, shortName, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from get_balance by explicitly stating it contains no money amounts, separating it from its closest 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?

The description clearly tells the agent not to pass arguments because the account is fixed by AVITO_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID, and it explicitly routes money-sum requests to get_balance. It also excludes campaign data, but it does not name a specific sibling tool for campaign data, leaving that alternative slightly to inference.

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