Инвест-счета

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

Annotations already declare the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool exposes brokerage and InvestBox accounts, and its output is a required dependency for investment operations. No contradiction with 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?

Two crisp sentences: the first defines the scope, the second explains the critical relationship to sibling tools. Every word serves a purpose and the information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description conveys all essential context. An agent can correctly determine when to call this tool and what it provides to other investment tools.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain on that side. The description adds value by naming the key output property 'brokerAccountId' and its role, though that is not input semantics.

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 identifies the resource explicitly — 'Инвест-счета' (investment accounts), qualified as brokerage and InvestBox. It further clarifies that the tool is the source of brokerAccountId for three sibling investment tools, which distinguishes it from them. Lacking an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', the purpose is clear but not fully stated.

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 states a precise usage rule: brokerAccountId from this tool is the only argument for invest_portfolio/invest_operations/invest_securities. This directly tells an agent when to call this tool instead of the sibling investment tools.

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