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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the source of data, the difference between checking connection and syncing, and that the access key is entered by the owner and invisible to the assistant. However, it omits potential side effects, permissions/authentication constraints beyond key visibility, and behaviors around search or limit.

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 and efficient: it states the purpose first, then explains the two action modes, and finishes with an important security note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, and the description covers the main action parameter. But with two undocumented parameters and no guidance relative to closely related sibling tools, the overall picture is only partially complete for an agent deciding how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 explains the 'action' parameter well, giving real semantics to the 'status' and 'sync' enum values. But 'limit' and 'search' are completely undocumented; especially 'search' is ambiguous (searches what? in which field?). This is a significant gap for two of three parameters.

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 identifies the resource: prices the seller sent to Wildberries, used as the source for SPP calculations. It then gives specific action semantics — status checks whether the cabinet is connected, sync updates and shows prices with nmID, article, transmitted price, and WB Club price. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like parsee_get_prices, parsee_price_history, or parsee_spp_changes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context on when to use each action: use 'status' to check if the cabinet is connected, and 'sync' to update and display prices. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over the related price/SPP siblings, nor any exclusions.

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