Статус подключения к Аудиториям

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the already informative annotations: it sends nothing to the network and does not display the token. This provides extra safety context (e.g., no side effects) that the annotations don't fully convey, though the readOnlyHint already implies no mutation.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then providing specifics (token source, expiry, file location) and ending with usage guidance. Every sentence carries meaning without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool shows, where data comes from, that it's safe, and when to invoke it. No additional information is needed for an agent to use it appropriately.

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?

With zero parameters, the description doesn't need to explain any, and per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description correctly focuses on what the tool reports, not on inputs.

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 shows connection status to Yandex Audiences, including token presence, source, expiry, and file location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle pixels, segments, and auth flows, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Вызовите это, если инструменты Аудиторий отвечают, что подключение не настроено.' It tells when to use, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but that's not critical for a status tool.

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