Detsky Mir Catalog Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: each node carries `alias` and `products_count`, letting the agent gauge inventory depth before fetching a listing, and it points to a separate guide for error codes. It omits pagination behavior for the `limit` cap.

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-loads the action and the payoff in the first sentence, then the rationale in a short paragraph. No filler sentences. The reference to a module docstring is slightly informal but costs little space.

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 annotations covering safety, a full-schema parameter set, and an output schema in place, the description only needs to explain workflow placement and node contents, which it does. The reference to an external guide for full fields and error codes is acceptable but means some detail lives outside the description.

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 all three parameters (limit, parent, region) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning, mentioning that aliases and products_count appear per node but not clarifying parameter syntax. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: browse the Detsky Mir catalog tree and obtain the aliases that `detmir_category` requires. It also names the sibling it feeds into, which distinguishes it from detmir_category itself. It stops short of differentiating from the other marketplace category tools (wb_categories), but the marketplace prefix makes that reasonably clear.

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?

Explains the workflow context explicitly: since Detsky Mir has no working text search, the agent must walk the tree here first and then list a category via detmir_category. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. if you already have an alias), so it misses the top score.

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