Уточнения

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the adextensions library and the separate Ads binding flow, but discloses no further behavioral details like pagination behavior or return shape.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence is not redundant; it sets expectations about the attachment flow, making every word useful.

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?

Given the schema describes all inputs and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete for a simple list/filter operation. However, there is no output schema, and it does not describe the structure of the callout objects returned, which would help an agent understand the response.

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?

All three parameters (ids, limit, offset) already have descriptive definitions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a list ('Возвращает список') of callouts from the adextensions library, which separates it from the add/delete callout siblings. It also clarifies that attaching callouts to ads is done elsewhere. It could be stronger by explicitly naming a sibling such as add_callouts or delete_callouts, but the purpose is not ambiguous.

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 an implied usage signal: you can fetch callouts here, and attaching them to ads is possible through the Ads service. This hints at when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to adjacent get_sitelinks/get_vcards tools.

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