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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a key trait: search is lexical/word-based, not semantic, which directly shapes how the agent must call it. It also explains that results are merged across queries with a `found_by` provenance field and that limit caps at 30, though it omits auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the search strategy, then a per-parameter list — log ically ordered and mostly waste-free. One mildly promotional clause ('это главный способ получить хорошую выдачу') is slightly redundant, and the length is justified by nine undocumented parameters.

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?

Given nine parameters at 0% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description supplies exactly what's missing: meaning and constraints for every parameter plus the search-modality caveat. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and it still flags the `found_by` field usefully.

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 compensate, and it does: it documents every one of the nine parameters (query, more_queries 2–5, only_works_in_russia, only_free, only_opensource, category, added_after_days, limit up to 30, include_adult). It adds constraints the schema lacks, e.g. the 2–5 range for more_queries and the conditional use of include_adult.

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?

Names a specific verb (найти/search) and resource (ИИ-сервисы in the ailibri catalog) with scope. It clearly covers the keyword-search variant, distinguishing it from siblings like browse_category or get_ai_tool that don't do free-text search.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to decompose the user's question into several short formulations and pass them together, calling this the main way to get good results, and points to list_categories for the category filter. Missing is explicit guidance on when to prefer siblings such as find_alternatives.

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