List product conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact output content (id, name, full Russian explanation) and how the data is consumed by filters. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and does not restate the tool name or title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the language/scope of the explanations, and the practical purpose of the ids. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers return value expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by its empty properties definition. The description adds relevant context by explaining that condition ids feed the conditionIds filter, which is helpful even though no parameters need elaboration.

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 lists product condition grades on oskelly.ru, specifying the returned fields (id, name, full Russian explanation). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_brands or list_attributes by tying the output to the conditionIds filter.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain condition ids that feed the conditionIds filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the filter-integration note provides enough practical guidance.

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