wb_documents_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it provides none: no read-only indication, no output format, no side effects, and no hint about whether invoking it simply returns a static list. The description reads as a label rather than an operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The category examples are useful, though 'категории документов' is somewhat redundant with the English phrase 'Document categories'.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what a call returns and how the categories might be used. It only offers a noun phrase with examples, leaving the agent unsure whether this is a lookup endpoint, a reference list, or something else.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers all parameter semantics. The description adds a small amount of useful context by naming example category values, which is enough for a 0-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource as document categories and gives concrete examples (reconciliation acts, УПД, invoices), which helps distinguish it from document download/list siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action: the agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, returns, defines, or validates categories.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is inferable from naming that this might supply category values for wb_documents_list or wb_document_download, but the description never states that connection or any exclusions.

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