Получение балансировщика

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

The description claims a read-only information retrieval operation, but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which directly contradict the implied behavior. This is an annotation contradiction and leaves the agent uncertain about side effects, so transparency is severely compromised.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of the returned data fields. Every part is useful and there is no redundant text.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key information returned (status, protocol, port, etc.). It does not cover error cases or explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a simple get-by-ID tool, this is mostly sufficient. However, the annotation contradiction creates some incompleteness in the overall context.

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 input schema has full coverage for the single parameter balancer_id, including a description that it is required and represents the balancer ID. The tool description merely repeats this by saying 'по ID' without adding additional semantic detail, so it neither enhances nor reduces the schema-provided information.

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 'Возвращает детальную информацию о балансировщике по ID' (returns detailed information about the balancer by ID), specifying a concrete verb, resource, and identifier. It also enumerates the returned fields (status, protocol, port, etc.), which distinguishes it from list-oriented sibling tools like list_balancers.

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 implies usage via 'по ID' (by ID), indicating it is for retrieving a specific balancer rather than listing all balancers. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools like list_balancers or update_balancer, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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