metadata_objects_from_catalog

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the first-call side effect of opening a Universal report, the reading and normalization of data, exclusions of deleted rows/roles/subsystems, per-session caching, the `refresh_cache` behavior, and watchdog-based recovery logic.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then call mechanics, then actionable usage caution. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no wasted wording.

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 high-level workflow, caching model, and watchdog behavior are covered, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, for a tool with seven parameters, the lack of per-parameter semantics is a significant completeness gap, especially for the dual result-limiting parameters `limit` and `max_results`.

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, but it only meaningfully explains `refresh_cache`. It does not clarify the relationship between `limit` and `max_results`, the role of `session_id`, the meaning of `include_groups`, or the effect of `watchdog_timeout`, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Return/search metadata objects from `Справочник.ИдентификаторыОбъектовМетаданных`.' It immediately distinguishes itself from RAG-related siblings by framing itself as 'a live UI fallback when RAG is unavailable or stale.'

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 states when to use it: as a live UI fallback when RAG is unavailable or stale. It also gives an operational warning to wait for client recovery if the watchdog reports a blocked interface. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool to prefer when RAG is available.

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