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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 20 positions and the exact shape of each result (price, shipping city, seller count, verification date, links), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not explain pagination or how to reach results beyond the top 20.

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: what it does, what comes back, and where to go instead. The searchable fields and the result-shape summary are front-loaded ahead of the fallback routing, and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query semantics, result fields, result cap and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know when not to.

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 100% for the single query parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the bump by clarifying that the input is free-text keywords spanning three dimensions and by giving a concrete mixed-token example, which tells the agent it can combine brand and part name in one string.

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 and resource (search listing positions on the clearance showcase) plus the exact query dimensions: part number, part name, brand. The example «колодки KTM 890» and the explicit contrast with check_parts let an agent distinguish it from both siblings 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: for a list of parts or a work order, use check_parts instead. That covers the main confusion case, but the other sibling get_part is never mentioned, so the agent must infer when to switch from search to a single-part fetch.

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