Данные аккаунта ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the underlying endpoint and by scoping out academic data, but says nothing about nullability/empty fields or how role values look in practice.

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 compact sentences: capability and returned fields first, scope exclusion and alternative second. Every clause carries information; no repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch the return value — it does so by listing the main fields and the endpoint. Slightly incomplete because only example fields are given ('т.п.') and the response envelope structure is unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to identify the account.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves basic structured account info from the ELK service, and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, roles). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling elk_get_academic_data by naming what it does NOT return.

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 routes the agent: for academic card data (rating, group, faculty) use elk_get_academic_data. This gives both the exclusion condition and the named alternative, leaving nothing to infer.

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