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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by scoping the catalog domain and by disclosing the parser's understanding of DN/PN expressions, which is not visible in the 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?

A single sentence delivers both the domain scope and an illustrative query example with no filler. Every part earns its place, and the most distinctive capability, natural-language search with Ду/Ру, is presented clearly.

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 two-parameter search tool with strong annotations, the description supplies enough domain and query-language context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe result format or pagination, but with no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 query parameter already has a Russian-language description in the schema, and the description extends it with a concrete DN/PN example («затвор ду 50 ру 16»). The limit parameter has no schema description, but its name, default, and bounds make its meaning sufficiently self-evident.

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 states a specific action (поиск по каталогу) and a concrete resource (инженерная сантехника) with product categories, clearly distinguishing it from exact-lookup siblings like find_by_sku or get_product. The DN/PN example further pins down what kind of search tool this is.

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?

The description implies use for natural-language Russian catalog queries, especially with Ду/Ру specifications, but never explicitly says when to choose search_products over siblings such as find_by_sku, list_categories, or get_product. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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