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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond structured fields — that items lacking sizes return an empty sizes list — which handles an edge case the agent would otherwise misread as missing data, but nothing about permissions, caching, or failure modes.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the returned-field list are front-loaded, and the second sentence exists only to resolve a real ambiguity about empty sizes. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 already exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies the field inventory and one data-edge case. Only the when-to-use routing relative to search_products/check_availability is left to inference.

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 100%, so every parameter (articul, city_id, country) is already documented, including the default-for-city_id and the country enum values. The description mentions articul and city availability implicitly but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting information the schema does not already carry.

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+resource ('Product details by articul') and enumerates the returned fields (price, images, color, composition, rating, sizes/availability), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name search_products as the feeder tool in the description text itself (that routing hint only lives in the schema), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 rather than stated: knowing that 'articul' comes from search_products and 'city_id' from find_city tells the agent this is the follow-up detail call, but the description never says when to use this instead of search_products or check_availability. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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