Перевести бонусные рубли на другой аккаунт

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses the irreversibility of the transfer, the meaning of an empty success response, and the correct error-handling procedure (check balances instead of retrying). Since annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description enriches that with concrete operational behavior, which is exactly what this dimension rewards.

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 a single, coherent paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds behavioral and error-handling notes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity—not excessively long, and every sentence contributes useful information. It could arguably be split into bullet points for clarity, but as written it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints (irreversibility), success/failure indicators, and the correct fallback action after errors. It also clearly routes to the right sibling tool for real-money transfers. Given the schema fully documents the parameters and there is no output schema to explain return values, the description is complete for safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. However, the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that amount is in bonus rubles (with a minimum of 1) and that accountIdTo is the recipient, with the sender always being the configured account. This adds semantic nuance beyond the raw schema definitions, improving the agent's understanding of the parameters.

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 tool name and title clearly state the action: transferring bonus rubles to another account. The description goes further, defining what bonus rubles are (promo funds for advertising, not withdrawable) and explicitly differentiates from transfer_funds by stating that real money goes through that sibling tool. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the closest alternative.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for bonus transfers only) and when not to (real money via transfer_funds). It also provides critical operational guidance: the transfer is irreversible, an empty data object confirms success, and after network/server errors the agent should check list_child_accounts_with_balances rather than retrying. This provides clear, actionable context an agent needs to make correct call decisions.

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