Все балансировщики аккаунта (по проектам)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that results include project_id, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, auth requirements, or whether all balancers or only project-assigned ones are returned. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical usage hint. There is no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the scope (all account balancers) and the key output attribute (project_id). However, there is slight ambiguity about whether it returns only balancers with a project assignment or all balancers with the project binding as an attribute. Also, no mention of pagination or result size is made, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning that the response includes project_id, which is a key field for the returned data, even though it is not a parameter. This goes beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'balancers' with account-wide scope ('все балансировщики на аккаунте'). It explicitly mentions the project binding (project_id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_balancers (which likely lacks project info) and list_project_balancers (which is scoped to a single project).

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 clear usage context: it is convenient for searching which project a balancer belongs to, implying use when you need an account-wide overview with project associations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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.