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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: that the catalog exists in Russian and English, and that omitting query returns the entire catalog. No return format or size behavior beyond the schema's limit is disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by language coverage, query behavior, and the workflow hand-off. No wasted clauses, though the sentences are somewhat telegraphic and could integrate the query note more tightly.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies purpose, language options, no-query behavior, and next-step usage. The main gap is the absence of any differentiation from get_workspace_templates, which an agent selecting a template-listing tool would want.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description's notes on language availability and the no-query behavior largely restate what the schema already says ('Без него вернётся весь каталог'). It adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('ищет') and resource ('опрос в каталоге готовых') with concrete examples (NPS, отзыв о заведении, заявка на услугу). This clearly tells an agent what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_workspace_templates, which could cause confusion about catalog-vs-workspace sources.

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 implies how to use the tool (query-less calls return the whole catalog) and names the downstream tool create_quiz_from_template, which is helpful workflow guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like get_workspace_templates or generate_ai_quiz. Usage is implied rather than explicitly bounded.

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