Паспорт товара

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful context: access is restricted to one's own catalog and category is derived from the found card. It does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or return format, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 brief (two sentences) and free of fluff. The list of data fields is front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately visible. It is efficient, though the second sentence adds a procedural detail without much structure.

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 output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description must carry the full burden. It explains what data is returned but fails to link the input (nmId) to the output, does not specify the output format, and omits any caveats about missing products or catalog scope beyond a passing mention. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without external 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter nmId, and the description does not mention nmId at all. The tool name implies product context, but the parameter's meaning and usage are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 lists the data fields returned (card, item, parent category, characteristic requirements, prices) and explains that category is determined by the found card, clearly indicating a product-profile retrieval tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from sibling tools by name or scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note is the access restriction ('Access only to your own catalog'), which is a constraint but not selection guidance. With many sibling tools, an agent has no basis for choosing this one over others.

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