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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: search scope across several stores, cross-project behavior when project_id is omitted, keyword-limit semantics, and how kind/since filter results. This meaningfully informs invocation without contradicting annotations.

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 earns its place: scope, use case, project_id semantics, query shape, and filter explanation. The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and free of padding.

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 multi-parameter search tool, the description covers the search surface, invocation conditions, query constraints, and all parameter behaviors. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required here. Nothing essential 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 the semantics — and it does for all four params: query as 1–3 keywords, project_id fallback to all projects, kind with its candidate values, and since with ISO/cursor semantics. This substantially exceeds the bare schema structure.

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 states a specific verb ('Поиск') and a multi-source resource ('знанию проекта: полочки карты, журнал, память, диалоги'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read/list tools. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys that this tool searches across project knowledge rather than reading one artifact.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to invoke it: 'Зови за конкретным фактом или старым решением, которого нет в контексте.' It also clarifies behavioral use cases like searching without project_id and query shape. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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