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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which lowers the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful extra context by explicitly stating that the tool does not accept files, goods, passwords, or codes, helping agents avoid sending sensitive or irrelevant payloads. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence: it front-loads the core result, then clarifies the non-operational, read-only nature with a concise exclusion list. Every part adds value and 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 low-complexity read-only listing tool with one optional enum parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It communicates what the tool returns, what it avoids doing, and what inputs it will not accept, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it 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?

There is only one optional parameter, category, and the schema covers 100% of its meaning with an enum and per-value descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Возвращает проверенный каталог открытых страниц ДокиДепо') and a clear resource: a catalog of open/public pages. The verb 'list' is distinct from the sibling get_public_tool, which implies retrieving one item, so the tool is effectively differentiated.

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: an agent should call this when it needs an overall catalog of open public materials. It also adds a useful negative boundary ('Не выполняет складские операции...'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_public_tool for retrieving a single item or get_first_warehouse_day for other purposes.

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