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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the first block is 'gotchas' and that 'tokens' is the response budget, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or the relationship to sibling tools. Partial but not rich disclosure.

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?

Compact, front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples for topic are efficient. No filler sentences; the only minor slack is the gotchas mention, which overlaps a sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the required library_id is undocumented and there is no hint that it likely must come from resolve_library, leaving a real gap for a multi-param lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'topic' (free-form, Russian OK, with examples) and 'tokens' (response budget), adding real value, but 'library_id' — one of two required parameters — is left entirely undefined.

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+resource: returns documentation fragments for a given topic, with a Russian example. It is clear what the tool does, though the note that gotchas appear as the first block blurs the line with the sibling get_gotchas rather than distinguishing them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_gotchas or resolve_library, and no prerequisites stated. The only usage hint is that topic can be free-form and in Russian, which is input guidance rather than routing guidance.

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

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, yet it says nothing beyond content scope: no read-only confirmation, no pagination/caching behavior, no indication of how large the result is or whether it depends on auth. It only communicates what topics exist, not how the tool behaves.

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, with the content scope front-loaded and the topic-default rule last. There is no padding, though the parenthetical list is dense and the description is entirely in Russian while sibling tool names are English.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the absence of any link between library_id and resolve_library, and of any routing versus get_docs, leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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. It usefully explains the topic parameter's default behavior ('no topic = all') and 'по библиотеке' implies library_id scopes the result to one library, but it never states the required library_id format or where the id comes from (e.g. resolve_library).

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 names a specific resource (library gotchas) and enumerates concrete subject areas (signatures, idempotency, minor units, test mode, receipts), which is far more specific than a tautology. It implies a distinction from get_docs by framing the content as 'non-obvious integration traps', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 'Без topic - все' ('without topic - everything') gives a usable calling convention for the topic filter, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus resolve_library or get_docs, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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 usefully discloses two behaviors: language-agnostic matching and that an empty query returns the full library list. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup or describe matching/return semantics, leaving modest gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by concrete examples and the empty-query edge case. Efficient; the example list is slightly long but earns its place by showing accepted input styles.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the single input's semantics and the empty-query case, which is sufficient for a simple resolver. It stops short of explaining match behavior on partial/ambiguous names, a minor gap.

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 0% for the single query param, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is the service name, accepted in Russian or English, with four concrete examples, plus the empty-string behavior. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 and resource: find a library id by service name. The scope (Russian or English service names, with concrete examples) is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name its siblings get_docs/get_gotchas, but its resolution purpose is naturally distinct from document retrieval.

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 implied through the examples and the empty-query behavior (list all libraries), which tells the agent how to invoke it broadly, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the sibling tools get_docs/get_gotchas.

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