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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: what is returned (scenarios with steps and code, plus methods) and that both Russian and English queries are understood. Pagination behavior is left implicit despite a page parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and usage triggers are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. However, the enumeration of 40+ catalog services followed by 'и ещё 41' is bulky and partially truncated, adding bulk without full information.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does state that scenarios (steps + code) and methods come back. Combined with the annotation coverage, an agent has enough to search correctly, though it does not explain what an empty result or pagination looks like.

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 coverage is 67% with a well-documented enum for industry and examples for query, so the schema does much of the work. The description contributes only the language-flexibility note (русский и английский), and says nothing about the page parameter or how results are ordered.

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 verb (Ищет) and resource (по задаче, сервису или методу среди российских API) and clarifies the return payload (готовые сценарии шаги+код и методы). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scenario/get_method, which retrieve by identifier rather than searching.

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 a clear trigger condition (нужно интегрироваться с российским сервисом) with concrete domains: приём платежей, доставка, CRM, маркетплейсы, учёт, SMS. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_catalog or get_scenario as the next step, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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