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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the absence of a 2000-result cap and the fact that `has_more` is the site's own next-page flag rather than a computed one.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return-field parity and pagination semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and cross-referencing search_products for item fields plus explaining `has_more` covers the key operational questions. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit guidance on how deeply to page through results.

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 100%, so many parameters are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: price filtering and price sorting operate on the GUEST price window, which is a non-obvious semantic distinction for price_min/price_max/sort.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List a goldapple.ru category page') and immediately scopes it with sorting and the guest-price window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_products by noting the difference in result capping, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

'Unlike search, a category is not capped at 2000 results' gives a clear condition that selects this tool over search_products, and 'Items have the same fields as search_products' sets expectations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: no batch endpoint, ~3 calls (~6 s) per item, and that failed items are returned with a reason rather than aborting the whole comparison.

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?

Two tight sentences: the return contract first, then the cost/failure behavior. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, yet the description still gives the fields and the partial-failure contract. Combined with the latency disclosure, this is nearly complete; only the when-to-use-vs-siblings angle is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters (city, products) are already documented, including the city default and FIAS-id format. The description restates the 10-item cap already enforced by maxItems, adding no new semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (compare products side by side) and enumerates exactly what is returned: variant, both prices, stock, line rating, cheapest delivery. This clearly distinguishes it from get_product (single item) and search_products (discovery).

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 'up to 10 items' cap and the cost note imply a bounded, deliberate use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over calling get_product repeatedly, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied through the cost/latency remark rather than explicit routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful behavioral disclosures: seller is always null and store_stock is unavailable, and that bonus points and the 'Долями' payments are explicitly not discounts. It does not cover latency or payload size, but the semantic caveats are the valuable part here.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a dense but information-bearing enumeration of the card contents. Every clause carries distinct field semantics; the parenthetical asides are compact rather than padded, though the paragraph runs long without structural breaks.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it does describe them anyway and flags the fields that are systematically null or unavailable. For an open-world, four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented (city source and default, id-or-URL for product, the two include_* flags). The description restates the variant-selection behavior of the product id but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line states a specific resource and scope: a full product card for one item id, resolved live for a city. An agent can immediately tell this apart from search_products (bulk discovery) and compare_products (multi-item), and the enumerated return contents reinforce exactly what the tool produces.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for one item id' plus the note that a size/shade id selects a variant hints at when to reach for this tool rather than search_products. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative to route the agent.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, yet the description adds real operational context beyond them: authors' names are never returned, ratings are always for the whole line (the site has no per-variant rating), page-1-only payloads, and the first-sentence field inventory. It stops short of 5 only because error/empty behavior is unmentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields and kept to a short paragraph; every clause (page-1 extras, no per-variant rating, no author names) earns its place. The opening field list is dense but functional rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies the page-1 extras and the variant/line rating caveat. Agent needs are met for calling it, with only minor gaps (pagination/empty-result behavior) remaining.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by tying the 'page' parameter to concrete return semantics ('Page 1 also returns the line rating and star split... how many reviews this variant has'), adding meaning the schema does not carry.

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 makes clear this retrieves buyer reviews for a product and enumerates exactly what comes back (date, stars, size/shade, pros, cons, comment, photo count, likes). It is unambiguous as a review-fetch tool, though it never explicitly names which sibling it contrasts with (get_product, compare_products), so it lands just below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this to read reviews for an item found via search_products/get_product. It explains page-1 extras and the variant-vs-line scope, which is useful call-shaping context, but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs X' guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned records and the validity constraint on the resulting values, which is useful, but it says nothing about caching, result size, or staleness of the city list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable constraint on using those values. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly covers purpose plus the downstream usage rule. It is nearly complete for a simple zero-parameter lookup; only exhaustiveness/pagination behavior of the list is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description still contributes by explaining how a value drawn from this list should be used as the `city` argument in other calls, adding cross-tool meaning rather than repeating schema content.

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?

States the resource (the set of cities offered in goldapple.ru's city picker) and the fields returned (name, FIAS city id, region id), so an agent knows exactly what this lookup yields. It does not need heavy sibling differentiation since no sibling deals with cities, but the verb is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Any of them can be passed as `city`; others are not supported' gives real usage context – the output feeds the `city` parameter elsewhere and constrains valid values. However, it never states when to call this tool (e.g., before a filtered search) versus simply proceeding, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial semantics beyond them: prices are for the listed variant, guest vs signed-in price kinds, `below_price_window`, the 2000-result ceiling, the category-redirect case, and the caveat that promo codes are a condition rather than a subtraction. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a compact per-item field list and behavioral caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the return-field enumeration is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so fully documenting return fields is not strictly required, yet the description includes it plus the redirect and result-cap edge cases, making the definition self-sufficient for correct invocation. The only gap is the absence of guidance against the other browsing/search siblings.

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 100%, so every parameter (city, page, sort, limit, query, price bounds) is already documented, including the 24-per-page cap and the guest-price basis for sort and price filters. The description largely restates these semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search goldapple.ru like the site does'), then scopes it to real pages, sorting, and a guest-price window. It differentiates from siblings by naming get_product as the confirmation step and by explaining the category-page redirect behaviour that separates it from browse_category.

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?

It gives clear context for use (replicate the site's search, guest vs signed-in pricing) and explicitly names the follow-up tool: 'Confirm finalists with get_product.' It does not, however, state when NOT to use it versus browse_category or compare_products, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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