Citilink Search

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it notes the search is rendered in the operator's Chrome, defines the return format (including price_rub None never 0), and specifies error types (TransportDownError on CDP/Qrator failures, ParserDriftError on zero product tiles). This is rich context that annotations do not provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clearly labeled sections for return and error formats. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool, the description covers the core action, rendering context, return shape, and failure modes. The full output schema also exists, so the description is sufficiently complete without needing to list every response field.

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 documents the single query parameter with min/max length and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, only return/error context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Citilink'. The title and schema example ('ноутбук lenovo') confirm it is for product search, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like citilink_card. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies use for searching Citilink and states it is rendered in the operator's Chrome, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like citilink_card or compare_prices. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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