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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses output limitations, instructs the agent to render response.table and relay hidden_message, and warns that availability must not be treated as a promise of ordering. The availability-default and source=all behavior further clarifies results, and nothing conflicts with the annotations.

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?

Purpose and mandatory inputs come first, followed by availability behavior, sibling routing, and response-handling instructions. Although dense, every clause supplies a distinct operational constraint and there is no filler.

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?

The rich schema covers the eight parameters and nested filters, while the description supplies the selection boundary, sibling escalation, and output handling needed despite the absence of an output schema. Together they provide enough information to avoid the main misuse cases and invoke the search correctly.

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%, and much of the prose restates required inputs and availability semantics already documented there. It usefully frames the overall filter set and absence of a current parameter, but adds no further units, formats, or nested-price semantics, so the schema still 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?

The description defines a price-oriented catalog search "без расчёта" and "без тока", naming the required package/CCT inputs and optional filters. It also distinguishes the tool from its only sibling by directing flux and lm/W requests to led_select.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use this tool: catalog price lookup without an operating current or engineering calculation. Requests needing luminous flux or efficacy are explicitly routed to led_select with a working current, while the availability clauses clarify important invocation choices.

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