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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns a short plain-text list of matches (not full details) and instructs to use exact names for subsequent calls. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but as a search operation, that is acceptable. It adds useful context beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, output format, usage guidance, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the results with sibling tools, and what parameters exist. There are no obvious gaps in context.

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. It explains 'Optional filters: limit and doc_type' and even lists the allowed enum values for doc_type. The `query` parameter is self-explanatory from the description ('natural-language query'). While limit isn't explicitly defined, its meaning is implied by the name and context, adding value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Bitrix24 REST docs by natural-language query and return a short plain-text list of matches.' It specifies the resource (Bitrix24 REST docs), the action (search), and the output format (list with name, type, and description). It also distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by noting that results should be used to call those tools.

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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use the exact name/title from results when calling details tools.' This implies this tool is the entry point before using the sibling detail tools. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the context of the sibling tools makes the intended workflow clear.

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