Реквизиты счёта

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the semantic context of which fields are exposed (recipient, BIC, correspondent account) and the acceptable currency formatting, which is useful. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response shape or provider-specific nuances, but with a low-complexity read tool and output schema present, a 3 is fair.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and field list first, parameter guidance second. Every sentence earns its place. The opening clause partly repeats the title ('Реквизиты счёта'), but the appended 'для перевода извне' and the actionable parameter hints justify the wording.

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 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and no nested objects, this is a low-complexity tool. The description covers purpose, returned content, the source for account_id, and the currency list format, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only gap is explicit differentiation from similar sounding siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it compensates well. 'account_id — из list_accounts()' explains the parameter via provenance, and 'currencies — через запятую (RUB,USD,EUR)' provides both the serialization format and valid values. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema 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?

The description specifies the resource (account requisites — получатель, счёт, БИК, корсчёт, ИНН/КПП) and the intent ('для перевода извне' — for external transfers). It clarifies what the agent will receive, and the phrase 'для перевода извне' carries scope beyond the title. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, leaving transfer_requisites/card_requisites selection partly to inference.

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 'для перевода извне' phrase implicitly scopes this tool to inbound-over-bank-transfer requisites, and 'account_id — из list_accounts()' gives concrete guidance on how to supply the required parameter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as transfer_requisites or card_requisites, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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