Финансы аккаунта

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

The description states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint=false contradicts this by suggesting the tool may have side effects. This is a clear annotation contradiction, requiring a score of 1 per rubric.

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, consisting of just two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the return data, and the second provides concrete usage examples. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description lists the main data points (balance, subscription fee, etc.) and includes a specific field (hours_left) for a key use case. It is sufficient for a zero-parameter read operation, though it could clarify units or formatting. The readOnly contradiction slightly undermines completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter details because there are none to document.

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 uses a clear verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and specifies the resource 'финансы аккаунта' (account finances), listing concrete data fields (balance, subscription fee, service cost, discount, autopayment). It also provides example user questions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_account_status and get_account_services_cost.

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 gives explicit use cases with example questions ('сколько денег осталось', 'сколько тратим в месяц', 'когда кончатся деньги'), which clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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