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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown article, partial matches, or whether wholesale price is always present.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-list of return fields; every word earns its place. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but for a simple lookup that is efficient rather than confusing.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the field enumeration covers the main gap created by the absence of an output schema. It still omits not-found behavior and the multi-variant case referenced by the 'name' parameter.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'name' variant selector. The description adds no meaning about when to supply 'name' or how multi-variant articles behave, so it sits at the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 names the resource (товар) and the lookup key (по артикулу) and enumerates exactly what the card contains: цена, оптовая цена, упаковка, наличие, фото, ссылка на страницу. That is far more specific than the bare name/title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_products or find_analogs.

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 only implied: fetching detail 'по артикулу' presupposes you already have an article, and the schema note pointing at the art field from search_products supplies the workflow hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of how this differs from searching or quoting.

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