Статус подключения к Яндекс Товарам

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that it makes no network calls and does not reveal the token itself. The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations are consistent with this behavior, and the description adds meaningful safety and privacy context.

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?

The description is three sentences and every sentence earns its place: what the tool reports, what it does not do, and when it should be used. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It describes the scope, the specific return content categories, safety protections, and provides an alternative tool for a related but different need.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema documents nothing, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; no additional parameter detail is necessary.

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 opens with a clear, specific action — showing whether Yandex Merchants is connected — and then enumerates exactly what information it exposes (token presence, source, expiry, file location). It also distinguishes itself from check_access, which performs a live API check.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: if other tools respond that the connection is not configured. It also explicitly points to check_access as the alternative for a live API access check, giving the agent actionable and unambiguous selection guidance.

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