Справочник значений

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond that: the returned values are not merely examples but the complete accepted set, with case-sensitive exact spelling required. This is useful operational context an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact sentences convey the entire purpose, scope, and usage caution with no filler. The list of catalog sections is necessary rather than verbose, and the critical 'look here before guessing' guidance is placed prominently.

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 optional-parameter read-only catalog, the description adequately covers content, purpose, and exact-match behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of any description of the response format, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes the return shape reasonably inferable.

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 input schema is fully self-documenting: one optional property with an enum of ten values and a description explaining that omitting it returns all sections. The tool description's category list mirrors the enum values and does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a reference catalog: it lists the exact categories of valid values the panel expects, and positions the tool as the authoritative lookup before guessing field values. This distinguishes it from sibling list/CRUD tools like categories_list or counterparty_groups, which fetch business data rather than canonical accepted strings.

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 explicitly tells the agent to consult the catalog before guessing a field value and warns that the panel accepts only these exact strings in this exact spelling. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a read-only reference tool this is sufficient and clear context.

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