Список пикселей

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the response fields (id, name, create_time, url, coverage counts, segments), giving the agent a precise expectation of what the tool returns. No contradictions with 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then systematically specifies the response format. Every component—purpose, response envelope, field list, and nested segments—earns its place with no 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's contract. It provides a thorough breakdown of the response object, including coverage metrics and nested segments, making the tool fully understandable for an agent. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 is trivially covered at 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 a specific verb 'Возвращает' and a clearly defined object 'список пикселей Яндекс Аудиторий пользователя', which unambiguously identifies the tool as a read-only list operation for the user's pixels. The addition of the response structure further solidifies the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_segments.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to retrieve the user's pixels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the simplicity of the tool and the distinct sibling names make the intended usage obvious, so this is a minor gap.

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