I'm 29 and have uniliteral cataract - help needed

For the benefit of others (I did a short private message reply), the multifocal group you list there isn't a separate class of IOLs but is merely a term that includes bifocals and trifocals both. A multifocal is a lens with more than one focal point, and there aren't lenses made with more than the 3 focal points that a trifocal has. 

In terms of "Toric or not?" , that decision will depend on your surgeon's preferences since some prefer incisions, and some prefer toric lens, with usually low levels being corrected with incisions and higher levels with toric lenses (though some use incisions even for high levels). Surgeons differ regarding where to draw the line to use a toric lens instead of an incision since the studies so far on the topic are inclusive  enough that there isn't a firm guideline. With the low level of astigmatism you have, there will be some surgeons who will prefer to correct astigmatism where it comes from, the cornea, with an incision during surgery. Others will prefer to use a toric IOL since they feel the result is more predictable, but for such a small amount many won't think it is worth it since toric IOLs do complicate things since they need to be oriented in the right direction and can potentially turn and the correction will be off.

One important thing regarding astigmatism is to find out if your surgeon has the latest scanning equipment to determine total corneal astigmatism, which includes both posterior and anterior astigmatism. It used to be that   surgeons only used anterior astigmatism, which is what shows up in the scan of the shape of your corneal surface, but that often led to minor errors in the results. The most recent equipment will detect the usually small amount of posterior astigmatism which can in some cases be enough to make a difference noticeable to the patient. 

re: "monofocal vs. multifocal"

Unfortunately there is no perfect IOL yet that is right for everyone. You need to determine how much risk you are willing to take of visual side effects in order to avoid wearing glasses. The vast majority of people with multifocal IOLs are happy with the results, but a minority of patients do experience problematic halos&glare, in some cases enough to lead them to get the IOL exchanged (which is fairly safe, but like any surgery not entirely so).  Also you need to decide if you wish to risk wearing glasses, for what distance you'd prefer to need them.

The only commonly used accommodating lens now is the Crystalens, and some percentage of people don't see any accommodation at all and it is therefore merely like a monofocal  (perhaps 10%-15% if I recall what I've read right, I've only seen surgeons making comments about it and not a study). I've read some surgeons suggest that perhaps half of those with a Crystalens will need to wear reading glasses for near (vs. far lower fewer with the multifocals).  The crystlens also has some potential complications like z-syndrome that other lenses that aren't intended to accommodate don't have, though I gather that the risk is lower with the latest generation of Crystalens, I hadn't seen statistics. 

The other issue with multifocal lenses is that since they split the light, they can reduce contrast sensitivity, low light vision,  since you have less light for each focal distance, and because in the splitting process some light is scattered and lost. The latest multifocals tend to have less lost light.  

Although you refer to bifocals as being for far and near vision, the newer lower add bifocals tend to have the 2nd focal point located somewhere in the intermediate realm instead, which leads to some risk of needing reading glasses for near. Intermediate vision is useful for computers&smartphones, but also for much social distance and household tasks, even for say finding your footing on a rocky trail if you are into hiking  or running.

Some people use monovision to get better near vision, one monofocal focused far and the other at intermediate/near.  The probem with that is the greater the difference between the two, the harder it is to adapt. In addition, if there is too much difference, then you are effectively only using 1 eye for each distance and your depth perception starts being reduced as well as your contrast sensitivity. There is however lower risk of things like halos than there is with a multifocal, however there is still some risk, there isn't a lens in existence that doesn't lead some people to have halos unfortunately. 

The trifocals do have better intermediate vision than a high add bifocal, but their intermediate isn't as good as their near, and isn't as good as a low add bifocal that targets intermediate. If I were getting a multifocal, personally I'd go for a trifocal probably rather than a bifocal.  They reportedly have lower risk of halos than the old high add bifocals, I don't know how they compare to the low add bifocals. The low add bifocals aren't all created equal, for instance although I haven't seen a head to head comparison, the data submitted to the US FDA for approval seems to show that the Tecnis low add multifocals have a lower risk of halos than the Alcon low add multifocals (however it may be that they merely asked different questions so it is hard to compare the data to be sure). 

The Tecnis and Alcon bifocals also differ in the issue of  glistenings (do a search for "point, counter point on glistenings" to see an article on the topic), with Alcon being prone to them and Tecnis not. There is debate over whether they are visually significant. In addition the Alcon lenses tend to be "blue blocking" IOLs. Many, I think perhaps most,  surgeons feel there is no need for that, that it is a marketing gimmick and people can just wear sunglassses as usual rather than having that in the IOL since that can have some negative consequences (that are again up for debate, some issues are still unresolved in terms of the best features for an IOL). Also Tecnis lenses use a material which is a higher abbe number, which corrects better for chromatic aberration. Do a search for 

""iol optics and quality of vision" to see an article from Eyeworld which talks about the issue.  Overall I'd personally go for Tecnis lenses over Alcon lenses, I think Alcon just does a better job of marketing or they wouldn't have as large a market share as they do.

I almost went for a trifocal lens, but then the Symfony came out which is a new class of IOL, an "extended depth of focus" IOL. It uses diffraction technology and has rings like a multifocal, but it isn't a multifocal. Instead of having multiple focal points, it extends one focal point so more distances are in focus at the same time (or at least that is a high level approximation of a complicated optics approach). It reportedly therefore  contrast sensitivty which is comparable to that of a good monofocal, as well as a risk of halo&glare issues which is comparable to a good monofocal. It provides great intermediate vision (better than a trifocal), with a decent chance of good enough near so that most people don't need reading glasses. I decided that had the best mix of features to meet my needs and got the Symfony in both eyes last December.  I have almost 20/15 vision at distance (perhaps better than that by now, since vision does improve for a few months as you adapt to a multifocal, or the Syfmony) and 20/25 at near, I can read the small print on my eye drop bottles, and my smartphone). I had multifocal contact lenses before this, and my low light vision is definitely better than it was with those. I do suspect that a trifocal might have given me better really close vision, but I don't need that as much.  I'd say its vision is probably a bit better at intermediate than a low add bifocal, but likely not too much different, but with a lower risk of halos&glare and better contrast sensitivity.

One thing some people with multifocals experience is a need to hunt for the "sweet spot" of where their best focal distance is, since there are multiple peaks of best visual acuity at the different focal points. The Symfony is more like natural vision, as you move something further away it gets clearer, but smaller, so it is easy to find what the best tradeoff is.  People often get a small amount of micro-monovision, or mini-monovision with the Symfony to improve their near vision a little bit, while not being enough of a difference to reduce steropsis noticeably or  induce other problems. 

I don't know how myopic you are (I was -9.5D or so in my worst eye before the cataract made it worse), one issue with highly myopic people is that it can be hard to predict the right IOL power, I don't know if that issue applies to you, if so that is another issue to research  and be prepared for, that the lens power may not be exactly what they target. 

In terms of "What else should I know/ask",  an important issue is whether to get laser cataract surgery or regular surgery. There is controversy within the field as to whether laser cataract surgery has benefits that are worth the cost for the typical patient. (there are some special cases where it has been shown to have a proven benefit, such as for hard mature cataracts which are rare in developed countries since usually people get treatment well before the cataract gets to that point, unless it is develops very rapidly).  Studies seem to show that laser cataract surgery so far merely provides comparable but *different* complication rates (and perhaps even some rates that are higher than manual surgery) without demonstrable benefits for the average patient. The main benefit appears to be that it is better than an inexperienced surgeon, and that in the future as technology improves it may eventually demonstrate concrete benefits but that it isn't there yet.

One other issue that comes to mind with a unilateral cataract is whether you will have any trouble having an IOL only in one eye. How is the vision in the other eye? If there is much of a difference between the prescriptions for 2 eyes (as there can be after cataract surgery for 1 eye targeted for perfect distance vision, if the other eye has a strong prescription), perhaps 3 diopters or more, then regular glasses don't work well since there is a diffference in size between the two images. Sometimes special glasses can be made, otherwise often they recommend wearing a contact lens on the other eye which gets reduces the problem   an image size difference.

 Also the optics of an IOL are different from a natural lens. Most people adapt just fine to having an IOL in only one eye, but there is a small chance it might be hard to adapt, so you might be prepared for a small risk you might wind up wanting to have the other eye operated on as well. In my case since I had the beginnings of a catarct in one eye, and since I was old enough to be presbyopic already,  I went ahead and had both eyes done. In your case obviously its best if possible at your age to keep the good eye with a natural lens and take advantage of the acommodation. I just know of someone younger than you that had posted about having had an IOL implanted in only one eye, a monofocal, and that he was struggling to adapt to the difference even well over a year later I think it was. Again, you should expect all wil be well with only 1 eye done, but  you might wish to at least make your IOL choice being aware of the possibility there is a chance you might want to get surgery on your other eye as well if you can't adapt, or if you get a problem cataract in that eye as well.