Yandex Market Selfcheck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by explaining the three possible verdicts, clarifying that 'inconclusive' means transport/geo/captcha issues rather than parser failure, and noting that SSR extraction is inherently coupled to front-end drift. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loads the core action, and uses concise bullet-style definitions for each verdict. The final sentence about SSR drift adds meaningful context without bloating the description.

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 parameters, an output schema available, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the tool's purpose, the meaning of each result, and why drift is expected. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description reinforces that the tool needs no inputs and focuses on its verdict output. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 action and resource: 'Probe Yandex Market's search and card pages' and 'report a tri-state verdict.' It clearly positions the tool as a health-check/probe rather than a data-fetching tool, distinguishing it from yandex_search and yandex_card and from other platform selfchecks.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for detecting whether SSR extraction rules still parse Yandex Market pages, with verdict meanings explained. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the probe/verdict framing makes the intended use reasonably obvious.

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