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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema behavior: the link expires after 7 days and the buyer must act on it. It does not say whether repeated calls produce multiple independent links, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no filler; the core action comes first, followed by the lifespan and the buyer's role. Every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a link), its lifetime (7 days), and who acts on it next. Only the exact return form (bare URL vs. structured object) and any pricing/permission preconditions are left implicit.

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% and the single 'items' parameter is fully documented, including the reference to 'art' from search_products and per-unit quantities. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Создаёт ссылку на сайт с уже собранной корзиной') and clarifies the outcome: a pre-filled cart the buyer completes themselves. This implicitly distinguishes it from create_order, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clause 'Покупатель открывает её, проверяет и оформляет заказ сам' gives a clear usage context — choose this when the buyer should review and place the order personally rather than having the agent place it. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but the contrast with order creation is readable.

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