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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it handles morphology and RU/EN synonyms, and it will return title, original URL, type, category, date, relevance, and an excerpt — useful for an agent deciding what to expect.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, followed by a compact list of matching behavior and return fields. No wasted preamble, though the middle enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, language/morphology handling, and the return field set, and the annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, and the description's enumeration of content kinds (playbook, фреймворки, термины, книги, программы) roughly mirrors the `type` enum values, adding a little semantic anchoring. It says nothing about `limit` or the free-form nature of `query` beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (вся публичная база KZSalesHub) and enumerates the content domains it spans (B2B/IT, marketing, playbooks, frameworks, etc.). The phrase 'по всей публичной базе' implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like search_cases and search_playbook, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Scope ('вся публичная база') implies this is the broad, catch-all search, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternative tools such as search_cases or get_article, so the agent must infer routing.

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