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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the default limit of 50 cards, pagination via offset, search behavior, and the difference between partial and full cards. It does not explicitly discuss side effects, but the read-only nature is clear from context.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose and key fields, and then packs usage guidance into two sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 what the tool returns, how it relates to the parse workflow, default pagination, search, and the full-card option. Even though no output schema was shown, the description itself provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand its results.

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 compensates by explaining full, offset, and search, and by implying limit through the default of 50 cards. It does not name limit explicitly, but the meaning is sufficiently inferable.

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 verb ('отдаёт') and resource ('данные последнего сбора'), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly differentiates this tool from search output. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as parsee_get_prices or parsee_browser_search.

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?

It clearly explains that this tool returns the result of parsee_parse_urls and should be used for conclusions, not the search output. It also gives practical guidance on pagination, search, and the full flag, making it explicit when and how to use it.

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