Дочерние аккаунты

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the tool returns all child accounts in a single call (no pagination) and explains the apiPointBalance field's meaning (weekly quote reset Monday at 00:00 UTC). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 brief but packs essential details: purpose, differentiation from sibling, scope (no pagination/filters/search), and the apiPointBalance interpretation. It front-loads the core function and then adds clarifying constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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, the description compensates by explicitly describing the return format: 'Каждая запись — {account:{id,shortName}, contract}.' It also notes the absence of balances, the lack of pagination, and explains the apiPointBalance field, covering operational details an agent would need. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, this is comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail because there are none. Per rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description compensates by describing the return structure (each record as {account:{id,shortName}, contract}), though it doesn't provide additional param semantics since there are none.

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's function: 'Перечисляет дочерние (суб-)аккаунты настроенного агентского аккаунта' (lists child accounts of the configured agent account). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_child_accounts_with_balances by stating 'Балансов здесь НЕТ, для них есть list_child_accounts_with_balances.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling: it notes the absence of balances and directs users to list_child_accounts_with_balances for that. It also states the lack of pagination, filters, and search, clarifying the scope. Additionally, it explains the apiPointBalance field as a weekly quota, offering operational usage advice for rate-limiting.

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