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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It contributes one genuinely useful fact — no authorization required — and the 'product card' framing implies a read operation. It says nothing about behavior when goods_id is invalid or whether the response is cached/limited, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the auth note is front-loaded as a scannable caveat. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is roughly adequate: it hints at return content (card plus quantity tiers) and the auth requirement. Still missing is how it differs from the very similar sibling tools, which matters in this crowded product/order family.

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?

There is a single parameter (goods_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline for fully covered 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 names the resource ('Карточка товара') and an additional payload ('ступени количества'), so an agent can infer it retrieves product details by id. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and does not distinguish it from siblings like search_products or check_stock, which also concern products.

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?

'Без авторизации' signals the call can be made without a login session, which is a real usage condition. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over search_products (multi-result lookup) or check_stock (availability), so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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