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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the side effect (add to cart) and the return value (current cart state), but it does not mention authentication requirements, duplicate-item behavior, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that starts with the action, specifies the id source in parentheses, and states the return value. Every phrase is meaningful; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, the id source, and the returned cart state. It lacks minor behavioral details like duplicate handling, but the tool's simplicity and existing output schema mitigate the impact.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as from search_products or get_product, and the tool description mirrors this by saying 'по id из выдачи/деталки'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Добавляет' with the resource 'корзину' and specifies that it works by product id from search or detail pages, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like view_cart and checkout. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 use after obtaining an id via search_products/get_product, which gives a clear workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use), so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that it places an order and returns a confirmation with a snapshot of the cart, which is useful. However, it does not mention that checkout is likely irreversible, may trigger payment, or that the cart will be emptied—important details for a mutating action like this.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and outcome. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a checkout action that has significant side effects (financial transaction, cart clearing), yet the description only mentions placing an order and returning confirmation. It lacks prerequisites like having items in the cart or having payment details configured. An output schema exists for return values, but the behavioral context is still incomplete for such a complex action.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty, and no parameter descriptions are needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but no such semantics are required for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'Оформляет заказ' (places/checks out order) with a clear resource 'текущей корзине' (current cart). It distinctly performs a final purchase action, differentiating it from sibling tools like view_cart and add_to_cart which manage the cart rather than complete it.

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 usage when the user has a current cart ready to check out, and returns a confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as mentioning it should be used after adding items to the cart or that it should not be used for merely viewing cart contents.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return format (today, tomorrow, plus 7 days with weekdays) and the critical dependency on this call for any date substitution. It doesn't mention timezone or edge cases, but the output schema covers exact structure, so this is sufficient.

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?

Four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: what it does, when to call, why it's necessary, and how to use the result. The core function is front-loaded and there is no redundant text.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's role, usage, and output integration. It leaves no ambiguity about why and how to invoke it, making it complete in 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 tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; no parameter explanation is needed.

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 returns today's and tomorrow's dates plus the next 7 days with weekdays. This specific verb+resource distinctly separates it from sibling search/cart tools.

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 explicitly instructs to call before searching whenever the user specifies a date verbally, provides concrete examples ('tomorrow', 'by Friday'), and states the tool is mandatory because the agent has no clock. It also directs how to pass the result to search_products*.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the return content (gallery, price, characteristics, description) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose error/rate-limit behavior. The verb 'returns' implies a safe read, but more context would improve transparency.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words; the core verb, target resource, and key parameter context are all present up front.

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 one parameter, an existing output schema, and simple read semantics, the description covers the necessary context: what is returned, how to obtain the id, and the scope (Megamarket). No further information is critically needed.

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 already provides a description for the id parameter (identifier from search_products output). The tool description merely repeats this provenance ('по его id из выдачи') without adding new details, so it does not surpass the schema baseline.

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 uses the verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and specifies a detailed product card with gallery, price, characteristics, and description, keyed by product id from search results. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products that return lists.

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?

It states that the id comes from search_products output, implying this tool is used after a search to fetch details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, only that the id originates from search results.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool renders the minimal MCP App and echoes an optional message, covering its primary actions. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the description implies a safe, non-destructive health check, which is sufficient for a ping tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics without any filler. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is extremely simple: one optional parameter and an output schema that presumably defines the echo response. The description covers the main behavior and parameter, and since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has one parameter 'echo' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description directly explains this parameter by stating it 'echoes an optional message,' fully compensating for the schema gap and clarifying both the parameter's purpose and its optionality.

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 uses a specific verb ('echoes') and identifies the resource ('health check') and scope (minimal MCP App). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are product/cart operations, making it a health-check utility.

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 clearly labels this as a health check, implying it is for verifying connectivity/availability. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are all product-related, so the usage context is clear without needing explicit 'use when' statements.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is text-only and interactive widgets are not rendered. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, empty results handling, or side effects, but for a search tool the most critical behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality (text-only search results) and then clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers when to use the tool and the essential text-only behavior. The missing details on filters are a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 50% (query is described, filters object is not). The description does not mention filters at all, leaving the meaning and usage of the filters parameter undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 searches the Megamarket catalog and returns a text-only list of items. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products_widget and search_products_advised by noting that the interactive widget does not render and that it handles simple search requests, not product selection advice.

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: 'Use by default' and specifies when to avoid it (when user asks for widget, cards, interactive output, or product selection help). This clearly differentiates from alternatives and gives concrete selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: rendering a widget, mandatory prerequisite reading of skill://shopping-advisor/SKILL.md, asking clarifying questions, and comparing by price/review volume. It does not elaborate on side effects or state changes, but the tool is clearly advisory and non-destructive in intent.

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 but dense, using two sentences plus a mandatory instruction. Every clause earns its place, covering purpose, prerequisites, usage context, and methodology. It is front-loaded with the core function, and while packed, it remains clear and not overly verbose.

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 is contextually complete for a complex tool with nested parameters and an output schema. It explains what the tool does, when to use it (vs simply searching), mandatory prep (SKILL.md), the step-by-step approach, and the expected deliverable (interactive widget with 2-3 tradeoff options). The output schema covers return-value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 coverage is 50%: only 'query' has a description, while filters properties (priceMax, priceMin, deliveryBy) lack descriptions. The description adds value by instructing to 'translate budget into filters', implying the price parameters, but it does not clarify deliveryBy or any exact parameter formats. This partial compensation justifies a mid score.

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 it 'selects a product for the user's task and renders an interactive widget', using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'just find' (search_products) and referencing the widget and methodology.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the user asks to SELECT a product or HELP CHOOSE, not just find'. It also mandates reading the SKILL.md resource before first call and outlines the required methodology (clarify budget, translate budget to filters, compare, suggest 2-3 options), providing strong usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (searches and renders a widget), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Since this is a read-only style widget tool, the lack of such details is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear usage condition. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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 an output schema present, the return format is already specified. The description provides purpose and usage guidelines, and the 'only when widget requested' clause sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings. Minor omission: no explicit mention of alternative tools, but the guideline implies it.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The 'query' parameter is described in the schema, but 'filters' and its nested properties are undocumented, and the description doesn't mention them at all.

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 it searches the Megamarket catalog and renders an interactive widget grid with photo, name, price, and rating. The specific verb 'searches and renders' and the underlined 'widget' distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Использовать ТОЛЬКО когда пользователь явно попросил показать виджет, карточки, интерактивную выдачу или UI', giving a strong condition for when to invoke. This differentiates it from plain search tools and instructs the agent not to read the skill manual.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'returns' but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or behavior when the cart is empty. For a simple view operation, the basics are adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes parenthetical details. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns (cart state with items, quantity, sum). No additional context is needed for the agent to understand its purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial. The description adds value by explaining what the response contains, but parameter semantics are not a concern. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Возвращает' - returns), the resource ('корзину Megamarket'), and the content (positions, quantity, sum). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_products, add_to_cart, and checkout.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the tool's function, leaving the usage context to inference.

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