catalog_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'НЕ собирает' signals this is a non-mutating read, and it discloses the return contents (sample, caption, PD-host, warnings) and the consent-card role. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid ref, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Extremely compact (three short clauses), front-loaded with the core action and return contents, then the critical behavioral constraint and the param semantics. Every phrase carries information; nothing is waste.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the preview's fields. Combined with the explicit non-assembly statement and the catalog_add sequencing rule, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error handling and auth remain unaddressed.

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 single param has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does: 'ref = id каталога ИЛИ прямой url' explains the accepted reference forms. It does not specify URL format or id syntax, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 (превью/preview) and resource (PD-издание), and enumerates exactly what the preview contains: sample text, caption, PD-host, warnings. It distinguishes itself from sibling catalog_add by explicitly saying it does NOT assemble, so an agent can separate it 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?

Explicit sequencing rule: 'show to user BEFORE catalog_add', and it names catalog_add as the follow-up alternative. The consent-card framing tells the agent this is a mandatory human-in-the-loop step, which is actionable guidance, not mere implication.

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