Получатель по телефону — Т-Банк + СБП

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description explains behavior that matters for correct invocation: the tool is safe but not money-moving, it returns a ready provider_fields value that should not be hardcoded, T-Bank account candidates lack bank_member_id, and the tool may refuse if selection is ambiguous. 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?

The core purpose and read-only safety warning are front-loaded, and the second paragraph is dense with important nuances. There is some historical/explanatory context that is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool today, so the description is a bit longer than the ideal while still being well-structured.

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?

The description covers the two critical halves, when to call and how to use the result, and it explains the confusing T-Bank-vs-SBP candidate split. It does not define the phone format or the exact behavior when no recipient is found, which is a minor gap given there is only one required parameter and the safety profile is covered by 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?

The schema provides no description for the single phone parameter, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as the recipient’s phone number, but it does not specify format, normalization, country-code expectations, or any validation rules, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 a specific operation: resolving a recipient by phone number, read-only, covering both T-Bank accounts and SBP banks. It also names the returned artifacts, masked name, bank, isDefaultBank, provider_fields, which is far more distinctive than the tool title alone.

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 explicitly says to use this tool BEFORE transfer()/payment_commission() for a new unsaved recipient, and then gives the exact next steps for transfer(): pass pointer_link_id, add bank_member_id for SBP banks, or omit to use the default. This gives the agent concrete selection and invocation guidance rather than leaving it implied.

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