Данные аккаунта

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is served by the `clients` service and that a default field set applies when none is given, but it says nothing about permissions, token scope, or how restricted/agency logins affect the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the returned fields, and the backing service with 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 non-destructive two-parameter read with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient; only the sibling-selection guidance and the account-resolution fallback story are left implicit in the schema text.

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% and both parameters carry full descriptions (field enum, login pattern, fallback to YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN then the token's own account). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: returns data of the current advertiser account and names the backend service (`clients`) plus example fields (login, currency, type, country). It does not differentiate itself from neighbors like list_clients or clients_overview, which also return client data, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than list_clients, clients_overview, or get_balance, and no mention of the agency/managed-login scenario implied by the client_login parameter. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'current account'.

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