Товары в магазине

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses return fields (price, promoPrice, weight, inStock), prerequisites (a set address, shop specified by name), and the tool's non-destructive nature implicitly. It also clarifies behavioral nuances like the category listing fallback and the need for a specific tool for cart actions.

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 dense but well-structured with bullet points for modes, making it easy to scan. Every sentence contributes unique value: mode definitions, return fields, related tool guidance, and prerequisites. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: return values, prerequisites, alternative tools, and usage modes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the interaction of query and category: omitting both lists categories, query searches, category browses. It also clarifies the shop parameter ('Магазин задаётся именем'). The limit parameter is not mentioned, but schema provides min/max/default, so this is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching products in a store ('поиск товаров по запросу') and browsing by category, explicitly distinguishing it from restaurant menus. It names concrete use cases and differentiates from siblings like get_menu and add_product.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains the three modes (no query/category = category list, query = product search, category = category items), states this is the main path for 'add X from store', and directs users to add_product rather than add_to_cart. It also notes the requirement of a set address.

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