Поиск товаров Megamarket (только текст)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is text-only and interactive widgets are not rendered. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, empty results handling, or side effects, but for a search tool the most critical behavior is covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality (text-only search results) and then clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers when to use the tool and the essential text-only behavior. The missing details on filters are a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 50% (query is described, filters object is not). The description does not mention filters at all, leaving the meaning and usage of the filters parameter undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Megamarket catalog and returns a text-only list of items. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products_widget and search_products_advised by noting that the interactive widget does not render and that it handles simple search requests, not product selection advice.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use by default' and specifies when to avoid it (when user asks for widget, cards, interactive output, or product selection help). This clearly differentiates from alternatives and gives concrete selection criteria.

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