clients.get

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context about what data is returned, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral edge cases. No contradiction 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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose. The service/method sentence is partly redundant with the title but adds a read cue, and the documentation link is useful. No unnecessary padding.

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 read-only getter with six well-documented parameter arrays and a pointer to the full field list via direct_fields, the description gives adequate orientation about the intended data. There is no output schema, but the response is essentially the requested fields, so the main gap is more explicit guidance on choosing FieldNames values.

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%, with each parameter property documented and allowed values listed. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the overall return content, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Возвращает' (returns), names the resource (advertiser/agency parameters and user settings for the representative), and explicitly labels it as clients.get (read). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling *_get tools by resource.

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 implies this tool is for reading client/agency parameters and user settings, and labels it as a read method. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools, does not name alternatives like direct_fields for expanding field lists, and gives no exclusion criteria.

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