Список рекламодателей

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

It discloses the exact response envelope '{total, items, page, limit, hasNextPage}' plus apiPointBalance, and enumerates per-item fields including legalType and legalRole enums. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining pagination behavior, filtering limitations, and returned data shape, with no contradiction.

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 front-loads the core behavior and then packs response fields, filters, defaults, and item structure into one dense paragraph. Every sentence carries information, and the detailed field list is justified because no output schema is provided.

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 paged list tool with 3 optional parameters, nested filters, and no output schema, the description covers response envelope, item fields, filter semantics, value ranges, defaults, and search limitations. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret the result without additional assumptions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates the schema: limit 1..100 default 20, page numbering from 1, and the same filter keys. The only added semantic is the absence of full-text search, which is useful but does not substantially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Возвращает одну страницу рекламодателей, зарегистрированных под аккаунтом', giving a specific verb, resource, and pagination scope. It also details response fields, filters, and limitations, making it unambiguous which entity is returned and how this differs from contract/campaign/creative listers.

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 states the supported narrowing filters (filter.ids / filter.inns / filter.roles) and explicitly warns 'полнотекстового поиска нет, совпадения по названиям придётся искать самостоятельно', which is a clear when-not for name searches. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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