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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful value by detailing the return contents (variants, placement areas, print methods with constraints) even though no output schema exists, and by specifying the fields that feed calc_print. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the payload of the card is front-loaded and the calc_print handoff comes last where it belongs. Slightly list-like but every clause describes real returned content, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return value, and it does so thoroughly (price, stock, variants, placement areas, print methods with code/name/min. run/lead time). Combined with the calc_print handoff, an agent has enough to call it and use the result, though lookup-key precedence and any error/pagination behavior are left to the schema.

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 100% and all three parameters (id, url, article) are documented in the schema as interchangeable lookup keys ('Или ссылка…', 'Или артикул…'), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about the id/url/article alternatives or precedence, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 concrete resource ('Полная карточка товара') and enumerates exactly what it contains — description, price, stock, sizes/colors as variants, print placement areas with sizes, methods with code/name/min. run/length. This distinguishes it from the sibling search_products (full card vs. search), though the contrast is implicit rather than stated in the description itself.

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?

Gives an explicit downstream workflow instruction: pass 'place_id' and 'code' from the response into calc_print, which tells the agent how the tool fits into a broader task. It does not state when to prefer this over search_products (e.g. 'call after search_products to get full details'), so no exclusions or explicit alternatives are offered.

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