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 profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about result ranking, pagination, what the 'limit' truncation does, or query behavior. Beyond the annotations the description carries no extra behavioral signal.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the search domain and then the content-type caveat. There is no filler, though the parenthetical '(playbook)' and the dash clause make it slightly dense for one line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the load, and the tool sits among four sibling search tools with no routing guidance to any of them. Return shape, result ordering and how 'limit' behaves are all unspecified, leaving an agent able to call the tool but not to reason about its results or when to prefer it.

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 description coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema as free-form RU/EN, but 'limit' has no description (only default 8, min 1, max 20). The description adds no parameter meaning at all - it never mentions the query form or the result cap - so it does not compensate for the coverage gap as the rubric requires below 80%.

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 class: Sales OS systems/playbooks, training programs and frameworks. It also draws a content-type boundary (пошаговые методики, а не отдельные статьи), which separates it from article retrieval. It stops short of naming the sibling search tools (search_knowledge, search_cases), so differentiation is semantic rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied through the negative qualifier 'не отдельные статьи', which tells the agent this is for methodologies rather than single articles. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing search_playbook over search_knowledge/search_cases/get_article is stated. The agent must infer routing from the content-type hint alone.

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