Моя учётная запись

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned profile fields: name, email, phone, and timezone. It also clarifies the scope as the token owner's profile. 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?

One short, well-structured sentence conveys the resource, scope, and key response fields without unnecessary detail. The essential information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only profile getter, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the target account and the returned fields. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing itself from accounts_list, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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, so the schema needs no augmentation. The description still adds meaning by indicating what data the returned profile will contain, giving the agent expectations for the response shape.

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 resource and scope: 'Профиль владельца токена' identifies the current authenticated user's account, distinct from account_update and accounts_list. The title 'Моя учётная запись' reinforces the singular, self-scoped nature of the operation.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'владельца токена' and the sibling tool names, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of accounts_list or account_update. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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