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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the returned price is cart-equivalent, that availability with lead time ('под заказ со сроком') is included, and that delivery/measurement/installation costs are not part of the figure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and returns, and the exclusion clause is compact. The opening sentence is somewhat dense with clauses ('так же как в корзине сайта') but 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 correctly spends a sentence on what comes back (product link with the selected variant) and on availability status. It does not state price currency/format or how the lead time is expressed, a minor residual gap for a pricing tool.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only gestures at 'выбранными допами и количеством' without adding meaning beyond the schema's own 'по одному варианту на доп' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource (price calculation for a product with selected extras and quantity), mirrors the site cart for fidelity, and explicitly distinguishes scope by excluding delivery, measurement and installation while pointing to the sibling tool usloviya for those. An agent can tell this apart from tovar/poisk/razdely without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context for when this applies (price of a configuration plus its availability) and explicit exclusions with a redirect to usloviya. No explicit statement about what to call instead when the user only wants a price without extras or availability, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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