Товары и услуги

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the balance formula, the fact that only actual operations are considered, and that services have no balance. Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements rather than repeats them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then supplies only the most relevant behavioral detail.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and no required arguments, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what is returned, how balances are computed, and the service exception. It could be more specific about output fields or pagination, but those are not essential for invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra domain meaning, especially for kind=SERVICE by explaining that services have no balance, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'products or services' wording.

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 warehouse cards with current balances, which clearly identifies the resource and purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from warehouse_get, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of warehouse_get, warehouse_save, warehouse_delete, or warehouse_groups. The intended use is implied from the name and the balance description, but alternatives are never mentioned.

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