Номенклатура

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the product fields available and by framing it as an existence/code lookup. It does not discuss pagination or the open-world caveat, but those are secondary given 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and its fields, then gives concrete user-facing questions the tool answers. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, optional-parameter lookup tool, the description combined with schema and annotations covers most needs: purpose, available fields, query semantics, and safety profile. The only notable gap is the unexplained `filial_code` parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 already high (3 of 4 parameters), and the description adds meaning beyond it by listing likely values for the `fields` parameter (name, code, article, packaging, brand) and reinforcing searchable attributes. The `filial_code` parameter remains undocumented, which prevents a perfect score.

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 identifies a clear resource (product directory) and enumerates its contents: name, code, article, packaging, brand. It also states concrete questions the tool answers, such as 'is there such a product' and 'what is its code'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the product-focused purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly frames intended use: checking whether a product exists and retrieving its code. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the quoted use cases make the appropriate scenario clear.

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