Подбор товара Megamarket (виджет + методичка)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: rendering a widget, mandatory prerequisite reading of skill://shopping-advisor/SKILL.md, asking clarifying questions, and comparing by price/review volume. It does not elaborate on side effects or state changes, but the tool is clearly advisory and non-destructive in intent.

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 compact but dense, using two sentences plus a mandatory instruction. Every clause earns its place, covering purpose, prerequisites, usage context, and methodology. It is front-loaded with the core function, and while packed, it remains clear and not overly verbose.

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 description is contextually complete for a complex tool with nested parameters and an output schema. It explains what the tool does, when to use it (vs simply searching), mandatory prep (SKILL.md), the step-by-step approach, and the expected deliverable (interactive widget with 2-3 tradeoff options). The output schema covers return-value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 schema coverage is 50%: only 'query' has a description, while filters properties (priceMax, priceMin, deliveryBy) lack descriptions. The description adds value by instructing to 'translate budget into filters', implying the price parameters, but it does not clarify deliveryBy or any exact parameter formats. This partial compensation justifies a mid 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 clearly states it 'selects a product for the user's task and renders an interactive widget', using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'just find' (search_products) and referencing the widget and methodology.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the user asks to SELECT a product or HELP CHOOSE, not just find'. It also mandates reading the SKILL.md resource before first call and outlines the required methodology (clarify budget, translate budget to filters, compare, suggest 2-3 options), providing strong usage direction.

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