Начать подключение Яндекс Товаров

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and no parameters. The description explains that the tool returns a link, provides a code, and that the code is useless to outsiders, and also mentions the scope and token. Since annotations cover safety, the description goes beyond to explain the OAuth flow behavior. No contradiction; the description adds meaningful context about the OAuth flow and code exchange.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that is information-dense but focused. It covers purpose, user instructions, security, scope, validity, and handoff—all in about 70 words. No wasted words.

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 tool with clear annotations and a descriptive description, this is close to complete. The only minor omission is that it doesn't explicitly state what the response JSON looks like (no output schema), but the description covers the essential flow and security aspects. Given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, a 4 is fair.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The context signals confirm zero parameters, and the description explains what the user should do with the return value, which is the meaningful semantic. A baseline of 4 is appropriate due to no 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'start' the login flow for Yandex Products, returns an OAuth link. The description distinguishes the overall purpose well, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling finish_login, but the flow is clear.

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?

Excellent guidance: instructs to show the link to the user, provides specific steps (open in browser under the same Yandex login as the YML feed, confirm access, return the code), and states the code's 10-minute validity. Explicitly hands off to finish_login. This covers when and how to use it, and the alternative is implied.

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