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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-derived traits: the answer is a dated summary with a source link and may be stale because 'rules change', which is important operational context that the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the staleness caveat and audience note. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the trailing audience sentence is the least essential part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies scope, content coverage, provenance, and a staleness warning, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 100% and the single enum parameter already documents 'omit to get all three'. The description names the three marketplaces but adds no filtering semantics, formatting, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 resource (official photo requirements for Wildberries, Ozon, Yandex Market product cards) and enumerates exactly what it covers: formats, resolution, aspect ratio, file size, image count, main-image rules, and moderation failure causes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like find_portfolio or draft_brief without opening any 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?

Gives clear applicable context ('useful for any seller, not only Egor's clients') and a concrete usage instruction ('tell the user to check the source before upload'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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