Поиск товара

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it says returned products carry the likely_raw tag and that the response header shows total matched vs. total returned. These are genuinely useful expectations not present in the annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter sourcing, result qualification, and limit behavior. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundant wording.

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 four parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description covers the important usage factors: what to search, where to get store IDs, and how limit affects output. The only notable gap is the requirement mismatch around app_id/point_id, which creates potential confusion about whether the tool can be invoked only with query.

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 for all four parameters. It explains app_id/point_id source and limit semantics, but it states they are 'obligatory' while the schema marks them optional with default ''. This semantic contradiction reduces clarity. Query itself is self-explanatory, but the parameter help is incomplete and partially misleading.

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 states a specific action ('search product by name') and resource (grocery item), which distinguishes the tool's basic purpose. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like grocery_good_info or grocery_rank, so a small ambiguity remains, but the core purpose is 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?

The description gives concrete usage direction: app_id/point_id should be taken from grocery_stores(), and limit is defined as controlling how many results to show, with 0 meaning all matching items. It does not explicitly reject alternatives, but for a search tool the instructions are adequate and not misleading.

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