Планирование заказа

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: confidence markers ('✓' vs '⚠ проверь'), exactly how matching handles punctuation/word order/word forms, and the important limitation that synonyms and transliterations are not guessed. It aligns with the readOnlyHint since it only plans and matches, not writes.

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 every sentence provides necessary guidance: output markers, matching behavior, and where to retrieve IDs/profile. It avoids fluff and front-loads the purpose before the more detailed semantics.

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 planning tool, the description covers the essential preconditions, inputs, and output semantics. It relies on an external 'ladder' skill and does not repeat output schema details, which is acceptable given the output schema exists. The custom_ordered vs global distinction is mentioned though not fully defined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it gives the ingredients format as a JSON array with an explicit example, and tells the agent where app_id/point_id come from (grocery_stores). The only caveat is that app_id/point_id are called 'обязательны' while the schema lists only ingredients as required, creating a minor conflict.

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's job: 'Спланировать заказ' and explains that it looks up each ingredient (custom_ordered → global). It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like grocery_search or grocery_checkout, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate further.

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?

It supplies concrete context: app_id/point_id come from grocery_stores() and are described as mandatory; it also explains what to do when matching fails (manual lookup via WebSearch/browsing). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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