Справочники

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the list of directories—nothing about pagination, response shape, how limit/query/filial_code affect results, or any other operational behavior.

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 compact—one sentence that immediately lists all available directories in a scannable format. It is not padded with unnecessary detail, though it could have been slightly more structured with an explicit verb up front.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description leaves important semantics unexplained, especially limit and filial_code. The agent can invoke the tool with just 'name', but it lacks enough context to use optional parameters confidently or understand what the returned data will look 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?

The description adds useful Russian-to-enum mappings for the 'name' parameter, helping an agent understand what each directory represents. However, it does not clarify 'limit' or 'filial_code', and some parenthetical keys (e.g., 'product_group', 'natural_person') do not match the actual camelCase enum values, creating potential confusion.

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 clearly enumerates the specific reference directories available (warehouses, product groups, producers, etc.), and the required parameter's description ('Какой справочник выгрузить') makes the action an export/read operation. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, but the resource scope is well-defined and distinct enough from siblings.

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 phrase 'Остальные справочники' implies this tool is for reference data not covered by the more specific sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like smartup_products or smartup_contractors. Usage is mostly inferable from the listed directory names, not explicitly guided.

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