Natural-language contractor search. Pass a free-form Russian brief (e.g. "хочу каркасный дом 180 кв.м в Подмосковье до 15 млн") and get top-N matching contractors plus an explanation of how the brief was parsed.
Returns JSON with: parsed filters, matches list, explanation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | ||
| top_n | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool parses the brief, returns top-N matches, and includes an explanation of parsing. It also reveals the JSON return structure. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention rate limits, auth, or side effects (which may not be relevant for a search tool).
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 that front-load the purpose, provide an illustrative example, and summarize the output structure. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 has an output schema and simple input parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: input format, output structure, and the parsing explanation. It could explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, but that is a usage guideline aspect. Overall, it is highly complete for a 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides a detailed example for 'brief' and clarifies the meaning of 'top_n' via 'top-N matching contractors'. However, it doesn't explicitly name the 'top_n' parameter or its default value (though the schema provides the default), so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.
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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('contractors'), and emphasizes the natural-language Russian brief aspect that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_companies'. The example brief further clarifies the exact input format and scope.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a free-form Russian brief and want top-N matching contractors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools as contrasts, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.