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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search function and parameters, but does not disclose read-only nature, result format, filtering logic, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no other safety/behavioral signals.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core intent and then summarizes the parameters. It is concise, avoids redundancy, and contains no filler or off-topic 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify search behavior, return values, and how parameters interact. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether results are filtered and/ored, or what happens when no parameters are provided. This leaves significant gaps for a 5-parameter fully optional search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, including enum meanings and units (e.g., 'Бюджет (₽)', 'климат: warm (стандарт) / cold (PREMIUM NORD с утеплением)'). The description merely lists parameter categories and adds no additional meaning beyond the 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 action ('Поиск' / search) and resource (композитных бассейнов / composite pools), and lists the key parameters (dimensions, budget, type, climate). It is specific and informative, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like recommend_pool.

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 implies the tool is used when searching for composite pools by the mentioned criteria, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or complementary tool references. The usage context is only implied by the search intent.

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