Yandex Market Product Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: reviews are capped at ~13 server-rendered items, the connector deliberately avoids the additional review-loading API, and errors follow a structured ToolError JSON with retryability information.

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 efficiently organized: main purpose first, then differentiators, then the cap/limitation, then error behavior. The bolded star distribution point and the review-cap paragraph earn their place because they guide correct interpretation of results, and the error format section is compact and valuable.

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 a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential remaining gaps: unique data value, the review count limitation, and error/retry behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the include_reviews parameter by explaining that reviews arrive with the card 'complete with pros, cons and helpfulness votes' and that the cap is ~13. This adds useful context not present in the schema.

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 specific action and resource — 'Fetch full detail for a Yandex Market product' — and enumerates the concrete contents: prices, rating breakdown, reviews. This clearly distinguishes the card tool from search and selfcheck siblings.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you need detailed product information, star distribution, and reviews in a single request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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