Остатки: получить

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, openWorldHint true. The description adds context about 'strong_consistency' affecting freshness vs speed, which is beyond annotations. However, no other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response format) are disclosed.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality and a key option.

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?

Sufficient for a simple read-only tool with two parameters and good annotations. However, no output schema is provided and the description does not indicate the return structure (e.g., mapping of item IDs to balances). Lacks details on error conditions or edge cases.

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%, so the descriptions in the schema already explain the two parameters. The tool description adds no new semantic insight beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'getting' and resource 'stock balances for a list of ads'. It mentions the 'strong_consistency' feature, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'stock_update_stocks'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools beyond that.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not suggest using this before updating stocks or when read-only access is needed. The sibling 'stock_update_stocks' is not mentioned.

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