get_store_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains stock_level values (Мало/Средне/Много), the semantics of pickup: Позже and pickup_when, and that it returns courier and pick-up point delivery. This goes beyond what annotations provide, without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states exactly what it returns; the second adds essential detail on store types and field semantics. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are structured. The description explains the key output semantics (stock_level, pickup_when, courier/delivery) and the relationship to the variant id. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly, including the city default behavior (in schema) and the requirement for sku_id.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (city default behavior, sku_id origin). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already covers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to repeat schema details.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Where one variant can be picked up in the city: stores with the site's stock level and pickup day.' It explicitly names the store types (letu_store, podruzhka_partner_store) and the meaning of stock_level and pickup fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_product or search_products, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies this tool is for store availability of a specific variant in a city, with the sku_id parameter linking to get_product. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make the intended use obvious. The 'Also returns courier and pick-up point delivery' broadens scope but doesn't confuse the primary use case.

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