sbis_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the authentication requirement via environment variables, which is genuinely helpful. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens when SBIS_LOGIN/SBIS_PASSWORD are unset, or whether any state is touched — though the presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and the credential precondition front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded. The parenthetical is compact and carries real information.

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 zero-parameter status check with an output schema already defined, the description covers the key fact an agent needs (credentials must be configured). The main omission is the failure mode when credentials are missing, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add beyond the baseline. The description does note that inputs come from environment variables rather than arguments, which is a small but relevant clarification for an otherwise parameterless tool.

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 and resource: checking whether login to a paid SBI account is valid ("Проверить вход в платный аккаунт СБИС"). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all company/shortlist lookups. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical "если заданы SBIS_LOGIN/SBIS_PASSWORD" gives an implicit precondition for meaningful use, which is useful context. However, it does not say what to do when credentials are absent (error vs. unauthenticated result) or route the agent among alternatives, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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