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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add scope behavior — and it does: omitting project_id widens the search to all projects. It stops short of describing ranking, result size, or truncation behavior, which would matter for a search 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?

Every sentence carries distinct information — scope, selection trigger, project_id default, query format, kind values, since semantics — with the broadest facts front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers what remains: cross-source scope, the all-projects default, query format, and both filter parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this search correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters and it does: query format constraints (1–3 keywords, not a sentence), the kind enum values, since as an ISO cursor that trims old records, and the project_id omission default. This is a strong compensation for an undocumented schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Поиск по знанию проекта") and enumerates the four sources it spans (map shelves, journal, memory, dialogues). That scope makes it distinguishable from the read_* siblings, which each target a single source, without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection context: call it for a specific fact or old decision that is not already in context. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (read_journal, read_map_section, read_project_dialog) to steer away from, so it falls short of the top band.

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