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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly redundant, but the description adds that it is free of charge and requires no API key, and—critically, since there is no output schema—discloses the return shape (0–100 score plus a list of remarks). It does not cover edge cases such as empty text or image-less listings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and checks, then usage, then exclusion—an efficient order with no filler. The telegraphic, punctuation-heavy style is dense but every clause carries information; slightly harder to parse than flowing prose.

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?

Covers what is checked, what is returned (score and remarks), when to use it, which sibling to use instead, and its read-only/free nature—sufficient for a two-parameter read tool with no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 marketplace enum is fully documented with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'длина под площадку' hints that length rules vary by marketplace but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource (checks ONLY the product description text) and enumerates the exact checks performed: length per marketplace, specificity, keyword stuffing, forbidden words, AI clichés. It explicitly separates itself from score_card, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Contains an explicit 'when to call' clause (one draft or edited description needing fixes) and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Не для оценки всей карточки... для неё score_card'). Both the positive and negative routing conditions are spelled out.

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