CPA: баланс (v2, deprecated)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond stating the body is empty, which is trivial. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise (two short segments) and front-loaded with the most critical information (deprecation and alternative). 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully adequate. It conveys deprecation, purpose, and the required empty body. No gaps remain for this simple tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, and the description mentions 'Body: пустой {}', confirming no parameters are required. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal but sufficient clarity. A baseline of 3 applies, but the explicit mention of empty body earns a 4.

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 states that the tool retrieves CPA balance ('Баланс CPA') and is deprecated. It explicitly references the successor tool, which distinguishes it from siblings. However, the description is minimal and relies on the deprecated tag for differentiation.

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 explicitly advises against using this tool ('deprecated, используйте cpa_balance_info_v3'), providing a clear alternative. This is excellent guidance for when not to use the tool.

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