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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable return-field context (name, tariff codes, minimum circulation, production time, features) even though there is no output schema, though it does not describe ordering, language, or format.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loads what the tool is, and uses the second sentence for actionable routing. No sentence is wasted.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned and does so by listing the fields. The read-only nature is covered by annotations, and the integration path into search_products.print_method makes the tool's role complete.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics, and the empty input schema leaves nothing further to document.

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 states a specific resource (справочник видов нанесения) and enumerates the fields it contains, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_products and list_categories. It also routes the agent to the related tool by naming search_products.print_method.

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 gives clear context by explaining that a method name can be passed to search_products.print_method, which tells the agent when the returned values are useful. It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or compare against other list/reference siblings.

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