Get shop info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond these: it specifies what the returned data represents (shop configuration, not monetary balance) and enumerates the actual fields. This prevents the agent from misinterpreting the tool as a balance/funds endpoint, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the core information. It lists the specific fields returned in the first sentence and the important clarification in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what information is returned and explicitly warns about what is not returned (balance). Given the low complexity, nothing important is missing.

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 is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameters. No parameter clarification is needed.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shop info'), and enumerates the returned fields: ID, status, test mode, fiscalization settings. It distinguishes itself from sibling payment/refund/webhook tools by focusing on shop configuration.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve shop configuration) and explicitly excludes a common misuse by noting that YooKassa has no balance endpoint. While it doesn't name alternative tools, there is no competing shop-info tool among siblings, and the clarification prevents confusion with balance-related queries.

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