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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is a generated answer with source links, plus the important quirk that a non-empty articles_language can zero out results on some portals and that defaults come from environment variables. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool these are minor omissions.

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?

Front-loads purpose and routing guidance, then documents arguments compactly. Every sentence earns its place, and given the 0% schema coverage the argument listing is necessary rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return format needn't be detailed, yet the description still gives the essential output nature (generated answer with sources). All five parameters are documented, alternatives are named, and no annotation-derived gaps remain.

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 fully document the five parameters, which it does. Each argument is explained with meaning and defaults, including the critical articles_language behavior, the env-var fallbacks, and the 'catalog_id/path' format for current_article.

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 ('AI-поиск по документации Gramax') and explicitly says the output is a 'связный ответ с ссылками на источники'. It also directly distinguishes itself from the sibling gramax_search by contrasting generated answers with a list of articles.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('для вопросов в свободной форме, когда нужен сгенерированный ответ') and names the alternative with its condition ('Для списка результатов — gramax_search'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the output is Markdown and the verb 'get' implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not discuss errors, permissions, or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 compact and free of filler. The Args list is clear and the article_id provenance hint is valuable. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the input schema is simple, the description covers the necessary calling context: both required parameters and where to get article_id. It does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for straightforward 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the Args section in the description is the only documentation. It adds basic meaning: catalog_id is a catalog ID and article_id is an article ID obtainable from navigation/search. This is helpful but shallow, with no format, length, or constraint details.

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 clearly states a specific operation: retrieve article content in Markdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gramax_get_navigation or gramax_search, which find or navigate rather than fetch full content. It could name an alternative explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives a useful usage cue: article_id should be obtained via gramax_get_navigation or gramax_search. This implies a sequence but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the main behavioral outcome: the operation is a read ('get') that returns a navigation tree composed of sections, articles, and links. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is reasonably transparent.

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 no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is separated cleanly. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema, and clear sibling context. The description provides the purpose, the parameter source, and the return shape. Nothing essential is missing 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: it identifies catalog_id as the catalog identifier and, crucially, tells the agent how to obtain it via gramax_list_catalogs. This is exactly the semantic information the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'get the catalog navigation tree' and enumerates what that tree contains (sections, articles, links). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like gramax_get_article and gramax_list_catalogs.

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 explicit practical guidance: the catalog_id should be obtained via gramax_list_catalogs, which tells the agent how to populate the required parameter. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over the search siblings, but the primary usage context is clear enough.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns a table with catalog names and IDs, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, authentication, rate limits, or side-effect characteristics. For a zero-parameter read-only listing, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with the action and result front-loaded. It contains no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the scope (all documentation catalogs) and the return content (names and IDs). Nothing essential is missing 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%, so there is no parameter semantics gap. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add anything.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Получить список всех каталогов документации на портале Gramax' (get a list of all documentation catalogs on the Gramax portal). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search, navigation, and article 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer that this is simply the tool for listing catalogs.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it warns that a non-empty language value can zero out results on some portals (passed as articlesLanguage) and explains the vector vs full-text search modes. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the portal-specific gotcha is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the Args block is structured per-parameter with zero filler. It is slightly verbose due to multi-line examples, but each line conveys parameter meaning that would otherwise be missing given 0% schema coverage.

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 explained, and the description covers the six input parameters plus a critical portal quirk. The main remaining gap is routing relative to the sibling search/get tools, which leaves the agent to infer selection.

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, and it largely does: it documents all six parameters, gives defaults, lists accepted language codes, explains the three resource_filter modes, and supplies three concrete property_filter examples with op/key/value/list syntax. This is strong compensation, though query syntax details remain thin.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource (search across Gramax documentation articles), which is clear and actionable. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling gramax_ai_search, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Clear purpose, but sibling disambiguation is absent.

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 parameter notes imply usage contexts (omit catalog_name to search everything, use search_type='vector' for semantic search), which is helpful. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gramax_ai_search or gramax_get_article, and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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