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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It compensates well by detailing the response fields (title, canonical_url, criterion, sorting, total, offers), explaining the meaning of criterion and sorting, and specifying the isError response with 'Не найдено' for a missing slug. It does not discuss authorization or side effects, but the resource is clearly a read operation with enough behavioral detail.

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?

Despite being dense, every sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, response contract, error behavior, and sibling routing. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the detailed field list.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the full response shape including nested offer attributes, error semantics, and usage boundaries. The only minor gap is the exact meaning of 'total' (likely the count of offers), but this does not impair correct 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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents slug with format guidance, an example, and an explicit instruction to take the value from list_categories. The description only restates 'по slug' and adds no new parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Одна тематическая подборка каталога по slug' — a clear statement that the tool fetches a single catalog category by slug. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly naming search_offers and get_mfo as alternatives for different use cases, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 routing: use get_category when the question matches a ready-made collection, with an example ('микрокредиты пенсионерам'), and states that search_offers is for amount/term matching and get_mfo for full MFO cards. This covers when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives.

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