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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the ranking model (stem/prefix matching, titles weigh most), the language handling, and the exact return fields (titles, links, snippets, ids). Pagination or empty-result behavior remains undocumented.

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-loaded verb+resource, then scope, then ranking, then query advice, then return shape — a logical order. The long parenthetical topic list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what content exists to search.

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 no output schema, the description properly states what comes back and that ids feed get_article. For a 3-parameter search tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only result-count and no-match behavior are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining how the query string is interpreted (Russian stemming, prefix matching, title weighting) and by clarifying what 'tool' pages mean (calculators, generators, checklists). That meaning is absent from the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 (search) and resource (drxinfra.ru), then enumerates the exact content types covered: blog articles on Directum RX infrastructure, error reference, and tool pages. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_error and get_article, which are narrower or retrieval-oriented.

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 concrete usage context — query in Russian, with example queries like «очередь растёт» and «сертификат» — and signals the handoff to get_article via returned ids. It does not explicitly say when to prefer find_error or component_versions over this, which is the only gap.

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