Открыть карточку склада

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail—that the result includes the current balance—but does not disclose error behavior or any additional side effects.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the core object and the distinctive current-balance detail. It is appropriately sized, though the mismatch in terminology with the title slightly reduces its overall clarity.

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 simple read-only getter with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description conveys the main return value and the notable extra detail (current balance). A more detailed response shape would help since there is no output schema, but the essential calling intent is clear.

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 already documents both parameters, item and business, with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns the complete product/service card along with the current balance, and the title adds the 'open card' intent. It is specific about the resource and return content, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools and has some terminology ambiguity between 'склад' and 'товара или услуги'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as warehouse_list, warehouse_save, or warehouse_delete. An agent must infer from the name and schema that this is the read/get variant.

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