Пользователи аккаунта

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's contribution is the additional return detail: apiPointBalance is returned with the user data, and each user record carries role and hasLoggedIn. This adds non-obvious output behavior beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: purpose, output shape, downstream compatibility, account scope, and the extra apiPointBalance field. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description fully documents what the tool returns: per-user id, role, and hasLoggedIn, plus apiPointBalance. It also states the scope limitation and points to downstream user-management tools, making it self-sufficient for a zero-parameter invocation.

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 and the input schema confirms that at 100% coverage. Since there is nothing to describe, the description appropriately does not spend text on parameters; this is the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 resource: 'Перечисляет пользователей с доступом к рекламному аккаунту' and specifies the exact output shape, roles, and returned fields. It also disambiguates itself from child-account tools by explicitly stating that users of child accounts are not shown.

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 clear usage: list users of the configured account and use the ids for set_user_role or delete_user. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for child-account user listing, but the scope limitation 'users of a child account will not show' provides enough guidance for most agent decisions.

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