find_categories

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and it does not. It never states how many categories come back, whether the match is case-insensitive or starts-with vs anywhere-in-title, or what an empty query (the parameter default is "") returns.

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, resource first then parameter meaning with inline examples; nothing is redundant and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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, and a single parameter keeps the surface small. Still, without annotations the description should say what a bare/empty query does and roughly what matching rules apply; those gaps matter for correct invocation.

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%, and the description compensates by defining the sole parameter as a substring of the category name, with three real fragments as examples. That is the critical semantic an agent needs — partial matching rather than ID or exact name — though the empty/default value behavior is left unexplained.

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 — industry categories of the Saby catalog — and the examples of a name fragment make the 'find by substring' intent unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the related sibling find_regions, which is the only missing element for a 5.

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 by the illustrative fragments («отход», «эколог», «очистк»), which show how to shape a query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of find_regions as the alternative for geographic lookups.

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