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 effectively describes what the tool does (search and return products with specific fields), mentions key contextual details like certification and compatibility, and implies it's a read-only operation without destructive effects. It lacks explicit details on rate limits or error handling, but provides sufficient behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and usage context without any wasted words. Each sentence adds clear value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects like purpose, output fields, and usage context. It could improve by detailing the return format or error cases, but it provides enough information for effective use, especially with the well-documented input schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with details like language support and range constraints. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 specific action ('Full-text search'), resource ('Russian software catalog'), and scope ('каталогпо.рф'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_featured_russian_software' and 'list_russian_manufacturers' by focusing on search functionality rather than listing featured items or manufacturers.

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 for usage ('Use for import-substitution: find Russian alternatives to foreign software'), which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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