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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the content scope (what is searched) and says nothing about ranking, result shape, or pagination behavior, so it clears the lowered bar but adds limited behavioral value.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the covered content types without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only search the description is functionally adequate, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, in a family containing three separate search tools, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent under-informed about which search to invoke.

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 50%: 'query' is described as free-form Russian/English, while 'limit' has no textual description (though its default=8, min=1, max=20 make its role as a page size fairly inferable). The description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, so the schema does the work and this lands at the borderline baseline.

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 ('Поиск') and a concrete resource scope: vendor/product/startup breakdowns and practical cases inside KZSalesHub. An agent knows what content is indexed, but nothing distinguishes this from siblings search_knowledge and search_playbook, which is required for 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative search tools (search_knowledge, search_playbook) that an agent must choose between. Usage must be inferred entirely from the content-scope phrase.

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