Search the goods catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact return fields (code, name, price in kopecks, barcode, UKTZED, group, tax rates, stock count) including a unit convention, plus the caveat that the catalogue may be empty for organizations that don't track goods in Checkbox.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then the empty-catalogue caveat; nothing is redundant. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so, and it flags the empty-result scenario. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of search-match semantics, total-count/paging behavior, or that limit/offset come from the schema.

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%, with limit/offset clamping, default values and the group_id UUID pattern all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about query matching (substring, prefix, fuzzy) or how group_id interacts with query, so the 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 (searches) and resource (the goods catalogue / номенклатура in Checkbox), and no sibling tool touches goods, so the agent can route here unambiguously versus receipts, orders, shifts, or reports. The parenthetical local term also disambiguates the domain vocabulary.

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 never says when to reach for this tool over alternatives, nor how the parameters select behavior (full scan vs query vs group_id filtering). The only conditional statement is about the catalogue being empty, which is a data caveat rather than usage guidance.

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