direct_list_agency_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is agency-token scoped and has an explicit cost ('10 units + 1/client'), which helps an agent budget the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and resource, then the auth constraint and cost. Dense but no filler sentences; the parenthetical field list is the only mildly expendable element.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. With auth scope and pricing conveyed, the remaining gap is the undocumented pagination/filter parameters, which is a modest omission for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies how the login value should be used, but limit, offset, and archived receive no explanation at all, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (an agency's Direct clients), enumerates the returned fields (Login, ClientId, ClientInfo, Currency), and even names the underlying API method. It is clearly a bulk-list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling direct_get_client.

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?

Provides a concrete gating condition ('agency tokens only') and explains how to supply the Login (as YANDEX_DIRECT_CLIENT_LOGIN). This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, though it never names an alternative tool for the non-agency case.

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