Корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting 'BidModifier — это процент, а не деньги' (BidModifier is a percentage, not money), which prevents a common semantic pitfall and enriches the agent's understanding beyond structured fields.

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 concise sentences carry a complete thought: what the tool reads, for which levels, and a crucial detail about the data type. No fluff, no repetition of schema information; every word earns its place.

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, filterable list operation with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names the filter categories, defaults via the levels parameter, and gives the percentage semantic. The only minor omission is an explicit statement about the response shape, but this is not critical given the operation's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 all five parameters are documented inline with their own descriptions. The description adds no extra detail about parameters themselves; the percentage hint concerns return-value semantics rather than parameter usage, keeping this at the baseline.

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 a clear verb 'Читает' (reads), identifies the resource as bid adjustments, and lists the supported categories (mobile, desktop, demographics, retargeting, regions, video). It also clarifies the scope to campaigns or ad groups, which together with the sibling tools (add_bid_modifier, set_bid_modifiers, delete_bid_modifiers) makes its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on what data it retrieves and for which entities (campaigns, ad groups), making it obvious when to use this read operation versus the mutation siblings. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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