Стоимость сервисов аккаунта

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations state. It does not explicitly mention that the tool is a read-only operation or any side-effect risks or guarantees, though the wording implies a simple retrieval. The description adds value in explaining the response content but not in behavioral disclosure.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause serves a purpose: what it returns, why it is useful, and which alternative to choose. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema 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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient contextual completeness: it names the output granularity (per service type), states common use cases, and points to the related tool for balance. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without additional guidance.

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 zero parameters, so there is no requirement to document them. The description focuses on the return value, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0-param tools is 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 uses a specific verb 'Возвращает детализацию расходов' (returns cost breakdown) and identifies the resource as 'по всем сервисам' (across all services). It lists example service types (VPS, DB, S3, DNS) and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from the sibling get_account_finances.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('куда уходят деньги', find most expensive resources) and provides a direct alternative for a different scenario: 'Для общего баланса используй get_account_finances.' This is clear guidance on selection among related tools.

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