bidmodifiers.get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'метод get (чтение)' which aligns with readOnlyHint and provides a documentation link, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or result limits. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences plus a documentation link. The main action is front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for its content.

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?

Given 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the variety of adjustment types (regional, demographic, etc.) or how criteria interact. An agent would struggle to correctly construct a request without external documentation. The description relies heavily on schema and annotations.

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 every parameter has at least a terse description (e.g., FieldNames lists possible values). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the load. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool returns adjustment parameters matching criteria, which is a clear verb+resource. It identifies the service and method (bidmodifiers.get), and the resource is evident from the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters, though the resource is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the other direct_*_get tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.

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