yd_clients_get

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state idempotence, safety, or any side effects. The lack of annotations and additional behavioral context keeps this at a mere adequate level.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read operation, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable idea of the return content. It could list more specific fields or structure, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter, client_login, is described in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'advertiser account info', with concrete examples (settings, balance, bonuses). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, many of which handle ads, campaigns, keywords, or Metrika data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other 'get' tools in the sibling list, such as yd_adgroups_get or yd_campaigns_get. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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