Корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that results span several targeting dimensions, but says nothing about pagination, default limits, or ordering, which is the behavior an agent would still wonder about.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and immediately lists what is returned. Efficient, though the trailing category enumeration is somewhat long.

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 7-parameter paginated read with no output schema, the description covers the domain well but omits pagination behavior and how the levels/ad-group/campaign parameters interact. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter mechanics, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's category list loosely maps to the types enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Получить = Get) and resource (bid adjustments), and scopes it to campaign or ad-group level while enumerating the adjustment families (devices, gender/age, audiences, regions, income, placement). The read verb implicitly separates it from set/add/delete siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It states only what is returned, with no indication of when to call this versus add_bid_adjustments/set_bid_adjustments/delete_bid_adjustments or any workflow context such as reading current adjustments before modifying them. Usage is left entirely to inference from the verb.

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