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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output contains only search-result cards with links, no product details, and warns against drawing market conclusions from a single search. It also exposes the shared-browser constraint requiring one query at a time.

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 then adds necessary constraints and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence adds value: scope, limitations, alternative tool, concurrency rule, and query-quality guidance.

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?

The description covers purpose, output limitations, the proper downstream tool, and operational constraints. The only notable gap is the undefined limit parameter; the existing output schema covers return-value expectations, so that part is not missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful guidance for the query parameter (specific queries work, general ones are often empty) and names the two marketplaces, but it does not explain the limit parameter at all, leaving its meaning and effect ambiguous.

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 clearly states it searches products on Ozon or Wildberries via an embedded browser and returns a list of cards with links. It explicitly distinguishes what the tool does not provide (price, rating, reviews, availability) and differentiates it from parsee_parse_urls.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use it to find products, not to study them; after receiving links, run parsee_parse_urls for detailed data. It also provides operational constraints: call one query at a time and prefer specific queries over general ones.

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