Проверить продукт

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (checks existence) without mentioning whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean), or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to clarity, and there is no redundant information.

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?

This is a check tool with no output schema, so the description should clarify what the result looks like (e.g., true/false, product details). It does not provide any information about the return value or behavior beyond the basic action, leaving the tool's operational outcome unclear.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'name' as 'Название продукта' (product name), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Проверяет, есть ли конкретный продукт в холодильнике' (checks if a specific product is in the fridge). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_fridge (listing all) and add_to_fridge (adding items).

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 phrase 'конкретный продукт' implies that this tool is for checking a single named product, giving clear context for when to use it versus listing all items. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.

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