Статус подключения к VK Рекламе

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it makes no network requests and does not reveal the token or client_secret. It also discloses the exact diagnostic details returned, which is valuable context for an agent choosing this tool.

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 front-loaded with the action, then gives the concrete data points, then safety/security constraints, and ends with a one-sentence usage condition. Every sentence contributes information and there is no 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?

For a parameterless diagnostic tool, the description covers what the tool reports, its security behavior (no network, no secret exposure), and the exact trigger for invoking it. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret its purpose.

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 and the schema already covers 100% of that, so there is nothing for the description to add about arguments. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is a strong fit; the description instead clarifies the output dimensions, which is 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 starts with a specific verb ('Показывает') and precisely enumerates the resource scope: whether VK Ads is connected, token presence and source, expiry, client_id, account, and saved-data file location. This makes it immediately distinguishable from auth-mutating siblings like start_login, finish_login, logout, and from other diagnostic tools.

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 explicitly gives a usage trigger: call this when VK Ads tools report that the connection is not configured. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name an alternative such as start_login, so it lacks the full when/when-not/exclusion structure, but the intended selection context is clear.

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