Search items and stock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavior context: it returns price/stock data, supports exact SKU matching, and name-based matching. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and result are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact. The parenthetical Bulgarian terms add clarity for the target domain without bloating the description.

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 read-only search tool with 6 optional parameters, the description covers the key behavioral expectations: what is searched, what is returned, and when to call it. Pagination and response_format are already documented in the schema. Without an output schema, a more explicit statement of returned fields would push this to a 5.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between sku and query/name: 'Give sku for an exact match, or query/name to match the name.' This goes beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find products/services (артикули) with prices and available stock (наличност).' It clearly identifies the domain (items/stock) and differentiates this from sibling tools like nula_search_invoices or nula_search_customers.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it before invoicing to reuse the correct item name, sku and price.' It also gives guidance on how to search: exact sku versus query/name. It stops short of naming excluded alternatives or when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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