Yandex Market Search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: price_rub vs price_with_plus semantics, the Yandex Plus requirement, the preference for price_rub when quoting to a person, the nuance that rating_count counts stars not written reviews, and the ToolError format with retryability. This substantially enriches behavioral understanding.

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 organized: purpose first, then market positioning, pricing semantics, rating-count caveat, and error format. Each section earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the most important call behavior. It is detailed without being bloated.

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 read-only search tool that already has an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context, pricing nuance, rating-count interpretation, connection to yandex_card, and error behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret its results safely.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful note that query should be free-text Russian and gives examples, but it does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps since none exist.

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 action ('Search Yandex Market') and resource, and lists what is returned: prices, ratings, and sellers. It also differentiates this tool by noting Yandex Market is the best single source for current Russian-market pricing and carries goods Wildberries and Ozon do not, separating it clearly from sibling searches.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: 'best single source for what does this cost right now across the Russian market,' including goods WB/Ozon do not carry. It also points to yandex_card for written review counts. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative search siblings directly.

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