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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry scenarios and are organized by industry, which is useful output-shape context, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or how the industry argument affects grouping/filtering.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding. The scope statement comes first and the routing guidance second, which matches how an agent reads it.

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 one-optional-param read-only tool with rich annotations this is close, but with no output schema the description should clarify return volume/format and how `industry` behaves. As written, an agent knows when to call it but not exactly what it will get back or whether omitting `industry` returns everything.

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. 'по отраслям' hints that the single optional `industry` parameter relates to industry grouping, but it's ambiguous whether it filters results or merely orders them. The enum itself enumerates valid values, but the description adds only marginal meaning.

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 resource and scope: all catalog services, grouped by industry, with scenarios included. An agent can distinguish it from `get_scenario`/`get_integration` by the 'all services' breadth, though the verb is implicit ('Все сервисы') rather than an explicit action.

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: when `search` returned nothing, or when the agent needs to pick a service. It explicitly names the sibling `search` as the alternative. It doesn't mention the other siblings (get_scenario, get_integration) or state when NOT to use this, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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