Клиенты и кабинеты в управлении

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — archived agency clients hidden by default, and tools falling back to the agency's own account without client_login. It does not describe pagination or the response shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key handoff, then the account-type caveats and the alternative tool. Dense but each sentence carries meaning; slightly long for a three-optional-param list tool.

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 token-scoped client listing with a fully documented schema, the description covers the agency/advertiser split, default filtering of archived clients, the login handoff, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already documents limit, search, and includeArchived with defaults, so the description need not repeat them. It complements the schema by explaining the semantic meaning of the returned login (used as client_login in any data tool) rather than adding input-param detail, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb (Перечисляет) and resource (рекламодателей/клиентов агентства + кабинеты в управлении), and names the API source (AgencyClients.get, YANDEX_DIRECT_CLIENTS). It is clearly separable from clients_overview, which is explicitly described as the summary tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context for both accountType=agency and accountType=advertiser, states why an advertiser may see an empty list, and routes the agent to clients_overview when a cross-client summary (balance, campaigns) is wanted instead. It also explains the downstream handoff of the returned login into client_login.

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