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

With all annotations false/neutral, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it reveals return fields (choiceSetId + pageUrl + catalogSearchScopeRu), explains the .su vs .shop URL distinction and VPN context, requires verbatim sayToUserRu, and details auth handling ('pass sessionId and retry', 'Never begin_agent_link again'). These are behavioral traits not visible in schema or 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and mandatory trigger, and every sentence carries operational weight with no fluff. However, it is a single dense paragraph with many clauses and prohibitions; bullet points or clearer breaks would improve scannability. Slightly overlong but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needed to cover return values and did so. It also covers trigger conditions, bundle-mode construction, store-scoping constraints, URL sharing, auth fallback, and cross-tool sequencing with create_purchase and get_choice_status. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description substantially enriches parameter meaning. It explains how to use wants for bundles ('wants[{q}] for EVERY ingredient in one call'), when canRenderImages should be false (ChatGPT/Grok), and when to pass sessionId ('if AGENTPAY_API_KEY required and you already have sessionId'). This goes far beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a comparison page (choice board, 2–4 options with pros/cons).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by tying it to search_products and clarifyHint triggers, and by describing the output as a page instead of a purchase or search result.

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 guidance is explicit and comprehensive: 'MANDATORY when search_products returns 2+ similar hits or clarifyHint.action is present_choices — call immediately' and 'For a basket/recipe: pass kind=bundles...' It also gives exclusions, e.g., 'Do NOT create_purchase until get_choice_status shows chosen' and 'NEVER substitute a markdown table for this page.'

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