Стратегия кампании

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further with non-obvious domain behavior: that GoalId in BiddingStrategy can be a service value (13 = key goals, 12 = engaged sessions) and that the Direct API never returns goal names. This is real added context beyond the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense but relevant detail on return fields and the service-GoalId gotcha. Slightly long for a one-parameter read, but every sentence carries domain value rather than filler.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so with concrete field paths (TextCampaign.PriorityGoals.Items[].GoalId, CounterIds) and the Value-in-rubles detail. Coverage is strong; pagination/error behavior is not addressed but is minor for this call.

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% for the single campaign_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, matching the baseline-3 rule when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Получить') and resource (current impression strategy of a text-graphic campaign) and enumerates what comes with it: PriorityGoals, counters, attribution model. An agent can immediately tell this apart from set_strategy and from get_campaign.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads the current strategy, so it is the read-side counterpart of set_strategy. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the cases where get_campaign would suffice.

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