Каталог российского ПО (каталогпо.рф)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and specific return data (product counts, 3 preview products), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no manufacturers match.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality with key details, and the second sentence provides usage context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 read-only listing tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the response structure, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (page and limit parameters with their constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'Russian software manufacturers' with specific details about what's included (product counts, 3 preview products each). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on manufacturers rather than software products, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings for comparison.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('useful to discover vendors for a category, or see who is most active in the registry'), which helps differentiate it from the sibling tools that focus on software rather than manufacturers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the alternative tools.

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