category_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the filter format and the special flag-filter meaning (e.g., '2147483644:да' means only discounted products), which is useful. It does not mention pagination, sorting behavior, or whether the call is read-only, but the output schema partially covers expected results.

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 and front-loads the purpose, then gives source guidance and filter details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the filter examples are formatted clearly. It could be slightly more explicit about the action, but it is well organized.

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?

The description covers the required parameters and the most complex parameter (filters), which is the main contextual risk. It does not describe accepted sort values or pagination behavior, though the schema provides defaults. Given six parameters and no annotations, it is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning, and it does for the non-obvious parameters. It explains the exact 'filter_id:value_id' string format for filters and gives concrete examples, including flag filters. The remaining parameters (page, sort, per_page) are sufficiently self-explanatory from 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?

The description identifies the resource as 'Товары категории' (category products) and explains that category_url and category_id come from list_categories or search_products.categories. This makes the tool's purpose clear and connects it to sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 implies when to use the tool: after retrieving category identifiers from list_categories or search_products.categories, and with filters from category_filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with search_products or state when one should be preferred over the other.

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