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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only nature, return format, pagination, or size of the catalog, despite being the only source of such context. A lookup tool with a bare 1-param enum needs more disclosure than this.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the single sentence is bloated with an exhaustive list of code prefixes (woodstock-, wpc-, egger-, hpl-, tile-, mirror0-3, glass-) that is heavy for a selection-time description and dilutes the core statement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return content could be characterized. It names content categories but gives no format, structure, or size expectations. For a single-enum lookup tool this is minimally sufficient but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'kind' enum. It partially does by splitting content by branch ('отделки дверей…' vs 'для перегородок — …'), mapping loosely onto the doors/partitions values, but never explicitly states that 'kind' selects which set is returned.

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 кодов' — a code reference) and enumerates the domains it covers (door finishes, RAL, edges, partition families, glass). An agent can tell this is a lookup tool distinct from list_door_models or quote_door. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is only implied by tying the catalog to quote_door and quote_partition, which hints these codes are needed during quoting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing.

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