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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds real behavioral context on top: result ordering is best-match first, each hit carries error text, meaning, how-to-check and what-to-do (Russian) plus a page link, and ranking mirrors the site search box. Truncation behavior (first 16000 chars) is also surfaced.

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 paragraph: purpose, then coverage, then return shape, then mechanics, then the data-hygiene warning. Nothing is padding, though the 'same patterns and ranking as the search box' clause is mildly redundant with the adjacent 'best matches first' statement.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: match ordering, per-match fields, language, and a link. Combined with the reference size and the privacy instruction, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description reinforces that the text should be the raw error 'as is' and mentions the character check, but adds no new syntax or format guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: match a log line or stack-trace fragment against a ~200-entry error reference for Directum RX infrastructure. The enumerated domain (PostgreSQL, RabbitMQ, nginx, Keycloak, Kubernetes, etc.) makes the topical scope unmistakable against siblings like search_site or get_article.

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 use condition (you have the error text itself) and an explicit prerequisite: strip passwords, tokens and personal data before pasting. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., general site search via search_site), so it falls short of a 5.

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