Счета

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive effect, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond those. It does so by clarifying that the result is an account-level aggregate view containing balances, cards, and both id and ucid, which is useful context for downstream tool choice.

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 short, front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place: a summary of what is returned, then the identifier-to-tool mapping, then the pointer to list_cards(). No redundant wording or filler is present.

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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It names the return content and gives the necessary sibling tool routing hints, so an agent can invoke it confidently without additional implicit requirements.

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 zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation burden exists. The description still adds semantic context by explaining what identifiers the result contains and how to map them to other tools, which compensates fully for the empty parameter surface.

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 states the tool returns accounts, balances, associated cards, and the id/ucid identifiers. It explicitly contrasts this with list_cards() by noting that the full card list is provided by list_cards, so an agent can distinguish accounts and card listing tools.

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?

It directly maps returned identifiers to related tools: ucid is for card_limits/card_requisites, id is for card_operations, and list_cards() covers the full card list. This gives an agent actionable selection and follow-up guidance rather than leaving it to infer.

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