Описание объекта

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the result comes from $metadata, meaning this is schema introspection rather than a query against business data, which tells the agent not to expect document rows. Return shape itself is covered by the output schema, so no further disclosure is required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the input format, then when to call it. No filler, no repetition of annotation or schema content beyond what aids selection.

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 two-parameter, read-only introspection tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about what happens with an unknown or misspelled entitySet, but that is a small omission at this complexity level.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds value by giving two EntitySet examples with different prefixes (Catalog_ and Document_), which conveys the naming convention across entity kinds better than the single schema example. The database parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it shows the fields (with types) and relations of one specific 1C entity. The word 'конкретного' (a single, specific entity) implicitly separates it from the sibling read.schema.list_entities, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use: call this before searching so you know which fields are available. There is no explicit when-not condition and no sibling is named as the alternative, but the ordering guidance relative to search tools is clear and actionable.

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