Detsky Mir Catalog Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: there is no working text search, nodes carry alias and products_count, and failures raise ToolError with a JSON message describing error code and retryability. This gives the agent practical expectations for discovery 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then error format. Every sentence earns its place, and the markdown headers make it scannable. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 rich annotations, 100% parameter coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the discovery workflow, what result fields to expect conceptually, and the error behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantics for limit, parent, or region beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces that nodes carry alias and products_count, which helps contextualize results, but does not improve parameter understanding.

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 verb and resource: 'Browse the Detsky Mir catalog tree and get the aliases detmir_category needs.' It also explains the tool's distinct role as the discovery step, contrasting with direct product search which does not exist for this source. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like detmir_category and detmir_card.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: Detsky Mir has no working text search, so the way to find products is to walk the tree and list a category. It also mentions checking products_count before fetching a listing, implying the follow-up step. It could be stronger by explicitly saying 'use detmir_category after selecting a category,' but the context is clear enough.

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