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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral warning that the response may be large because full classifiers are returned, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states what is returned, and the second warns about response size. The description is compact and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter reference retrieval tool with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the returned data and the large-response caveat. It lacks detailed output structure, but no output schema exists and the classifiers are well-known reference datasets.

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%, and the enum fully documents all valid values. The description largely repeats the enum list, though it does clarify that account_codes means financial statement line codes, adding slight value beyond 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?

States a specific verb-like operation (return/открытые справочники) and resource (classifiers), then enumerates the exact classifiers available. An agent can tell this apart from sibling lookup/check tools without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving static reference/classifier data, and the enum parameter makes the selection clear. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling lookup tools.

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