Статистика групп объявлений

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

The description explains that the tool spends weekly API points, that apiPointBalance is the balance before the quota refill on Monday 00:00 UTC, and recommends one wide period over many narrow calls. This adds meaningful operational context far beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and it tells the agent how to handle the response's apiPointBalance field and why an open-world strategy is preferred.

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?

Though compact, the description packs an exceptional amount of useful context: return format, metrics list, inclusive period, persistence hint, rate limits, and a usage recommendation. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the only minor note is it's a single long paragraph that could be slightly better structured, yet it remains highly scannable.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers all the essential ground: return type, metric names, period semantics, required groupIds, cross-tool references to campaign_stats/list_groups, and API quota cost. Nothing needed to call this report correctly is missing.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by clarifying that groupIds 'сужает выборку' (narrows the selection), that the period is inclusive of both boundaries, and by explaining the quota economics of wide calls, which reinforces the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb ('возвращает статистику по группам'), names the resource (ad groups of one campaign), and specifies the exact return shape (flat array, one entry per group with {id, name, paymentModel, campaignType, data[], totalData}). It explicitly distinguishes itself from campaign_stats, and the title/sibling list confirm this is a clear read/reporting tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool vs. campaign_stats ('Итогов по кампании не возвращает; чтобы охватить все группы кампании, есть campaign_stats'), explains that groupIds narrows rather than enumerates, and notes the maximum period length (100 days). The schema even cross-references list_groups and campaign_stats as data sources/alternatives, giving an agent full routing context.

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