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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the corpus size (119 positions) and that search is over a fixed database, which is genuinely useful. It does not say whether filters combine with AND semantics, what happens when no parameters are passed, or whether results are read-only, leaving notable gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 tight sentences with the capability stated first and the supported filter axes second; no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and it reads front-loaded.

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 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filter breadth but omits default-result behavior, filter combination logic, and error/empty-result handling. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete enough to predict its behavior precisely.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including enum meanings and units (BYN, per 100 g). The description largely restates those filter categories ('настоящий шоколад', 'отсутствие сахара', 'калории', 'белок', 'цена') without adding format details such as how query and brand interact. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('поиск и фильтрация сырков') and scopes it to a 119-item database, so the agent immediately knows this is the retrieval tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_curds or get_top_curds, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usable filters are listed (chocolate glaze, no sugar, calories, protein, price), which implies the situations the tool serves, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over compare_curds or get_top_curds, nor any when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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