Citilink Search

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the search runs in the operator's Chrome via CDP, that price_rub can be None but never 0, and that failures map to TransportDownError or ParserDriftError on zero product tiles. This gives an agent concrete expectations about execution context, edge cases, and error handling.

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 with clear 'Return Format' and 'Error Format' sections, and each sentence adds operational value. It front-loads the core purpose before the technical details.

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 the single parameter, strong annotations, output schema, and the included return/error format notes, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool and interpret its results. No critical gaps remain for a search tool.

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 single query parameter is already fully described in the schema with an example ('ноутбук lenovo'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the query parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action 'Search' and the resource 'Citilink' directly, and the sibling list shows citilink_card/citilink_selfcheck, so the search-vs-detail distinction is clear. The return format with 'items[]' and 'product tiles' reinforces that this is a product-listing search, not a card lookup.

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 implies its usage by naming the platform and action, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over citilink_card/citilink_selfcheck or other marketplace searches. No alternatives or exclusions are provided; usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling naming convention.

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