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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It signals that live pricing data is returned ('реальными ценами') and enumerates the concept variants, but says nothing about auth requirements, data freshness, or the response shape. Low-risk because the tool takes no input, so a 3 is fair.

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 tight sentences: the content inventory first, then the actionable instruction. No filler, and the 'call first' directive is easy to act on.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: concepts, bench variants, material-tiered prices, and section widths. Return structure is only loosely implied, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description goes slightly further by naming the vocabulary the agent will need downstream (valid material/width/concept), which is exactly the useful info for a lookup tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (AquaMania locker-room equipment concepts) with concrete variants (no bench / bench for 2/3/4 seats) and the data carried (prices by material ЛДСП/HPL, section widths). This clearly separates it from mutation-only siblings like configure_locker or calc_nmck, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'Вызывать первым' gives explicit ordering guidance: call this before deriving material/width/concept. It tells the agent when to reach for this tool but offers no exclusions or named follow-up siblings.

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