search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds valuable context: the city parameter's effect on delivery/stock, the cap on total_products_found at '≥10000', and the meaning of total_variants_found. It also explains the return fields in detail. This goes beyond the annotations 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 structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on return fields. It is informative but not excessively long. The list of item fields is comprehensive and useful, and the note about total counts is concise. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact by referencing the output 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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description still provides a thorough list of returned fields, which is helpful. It covers pagination via page and limit parameters (already in schema), and mentions caps on counts. It does not address potential error cases or rate limits, but these are not strictly required. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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%, meaning all 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond that – it mentions 'seller and in-stock filters' and 'price window', but these are already explained in the parameter descriptions. The main description's mention of city's effect on delivery/stock is duplicated in the city parameter description. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches letu.ru with specific filters (pages, sorting, price, seller, stock). The verb 'search' and resource 'letu.ru' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product (which returns details for a specific product) and compare_products. It is not a tautology and is immediately understandable.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions that city affects delivery/stock, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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