Информация об аккаунте

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest context: the underlying user.json endpoint and the presence of additional_info.client_name in the response, but it does not explain default fields, response shape beyond client_name, or auth nuances.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core function and the most relevant returned field are front-loaded, and the verification use case is stated in the second sentence.

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, single-optional-parameter info tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the endpoint, the account scope, a key return field, and the practical use case. It stops short of enumerating all possible user fields, but the fields parameter and open-world annotation make that reasonably acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the implied default/basic set, which matches the baseline of 3.

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+resource: returns information about the current VK Ads account (user.json) and specifically calls out additional_info.client_name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_status (auth state) and get_balance (financial state) by focusing on full advertiser-account identity.

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 gives clear context: use this to verify which advertiser account the token points to. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the single intended use is obvious from the token-account tie.

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