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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the search capability and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. The limit parameter's cap is left undocumented in the description, and no mention is made of what the tool returns.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and search criteria. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what results to expect and when to use it. It only covers the search function, missing usage guidance and behavioral expectations. The cap on limit is present in the schema but not highlighted, and no information about the result format is offered. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse these gaps.

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 both parameters are already described in the schema. The description's phrase 'by product name or URL' adds minimal extra meaning over the schema's 'Search term (product name or part of URL)', offering no additional syntax or format details. The limit parameter is not elaborated upon in the description. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the llmsmap.ru catalog'), and the search criteria ('by product name or URL'). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling 'list_catalog' because 'search' implies filtering while 'list' implies enumeration.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_catalog' or any alternatives. It does not specify conditions like 'use when you need a specific product, not a full listing', leaving the choice ambiguous.

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