Создать банковский счёт контрагента

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the dry-run-first behavior and the confirm gate, which is the most important behavioral trait for an agent. It doesn't discuss side effects such as what happens to an existing main account when makeMain=true.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what it creates, optional main flag, dry-run/confirm rule, ownerRef source), with the mutation gate front-loaded. No filler.

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?

With 9 parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential workflow (preview → confirm, ref lookup). It omits nothing critical, though the database/currency defaults are left entirely to the schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the dry-run/operationId flow. The description adds meaning only for the bik/accountNumber pairing, makeMain, and the source of ownerRef, which is marginal added value over the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Заводит расчётный счёт контрагента') and scopes it as a subordinate catalog with the two key inputs (BIC + account number). It is clearly a different sub-resource from the sibling create_counterparty, though it doesn't state the contrast explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete operating context: dry-run is the default, actual creation requires confirm=true, and ownerRef must come from find_counterparty. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool (e.g. when the account already exists, use update_counterparty instead).

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