Статус аккаунта

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

The description describes a read operation ('returns status'), but annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, suggesting possible side effects. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the conflicting read-only implication.

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 sentences, immediately states the core function and provides a practical use case. 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?

The description covers purpose and use case, but the contradiction with annotations creates a significant gap regarding actual behavior. It also doesn't describe the return format, though the tool is simple. The completeness is undermined by the behavioral conflict.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params 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 clearly states the tool returns account blocking status and notification settings, using a specific verb ('возвращает') and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on account status and blocking diagnostics.

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 provides an explicit use case: diagnosing why the API is not responding, with a note about possible blocking due to insufficient funds. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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