Список балансировщиков

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

Annotation readOnlyHint is false while description clearly describes a pure read/list operation ('Возвращает все балансировщики'). This is a direct contradiction, so score is 1 per the annotation contradiction rule.

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, front-loaded with the core function and return fields, followed by usage guidance. No redundant 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 simple list tool with optional pagination params and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and usage context. However, it omits mention of pagination behavior and doesn't clarify the read-only nature in conflict with annotations.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both limit and offset, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and resource 'все балансировщики нагрузки аккаунта' (all account load balancers), listing key returned fields. It distinguishes from project-scoped sibling tools like list_project_balancers by stating account-wide scope.

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 instructs to use before any balancer operations to obtain the balancer ID, providing clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools for project-specific lists or exclude edge cases, so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives coverage.

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