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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses asynchronous behavior, execution location, latency characteristics, and the immediate return value, plus where to retrieve results. It could mention failure modes or prerequisites, but it already provides substantial behavioral context beyond a bare 'launches collection' statement.

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 sentences with no filler: the first names the action and scope, the second explains execution behavior, return signal, and follow-up tools. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 async launch tool, the description covers input, process, runtime expectations, immediate return, and result retrieval. The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated. It could additionally mention list-size limits or setup requirements, but the description is largely complete for successful invocation.

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?

The schema only says 'urls' is an array with empty item definitions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the parameter is a list of links or articuls and implies the content type. It doesn't specify exact item format or constraints, but for a single simple parameter it adds enough meaning.

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 the action ('Запускает сбор карточек' — launches card collection), the input ('по списку ссылок или артикулов'), and the data collected (name, prices, rating, reviews, photos). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling parsing tools such as parsee_parse_category, but the list-of-links/article framing makes the scope reasonably clear.

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 context is implied rather than explicitly stated: use this when you have a list of links or articuls and want to launch collection. The description gives important expectations (runs on the user's computer, has pauses, takes time, returns 'task launched') and points to follow-up tools, but it names no alternative tools or conditions for choosing this over siblings.

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