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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it names the return shape (title, URL, annotation) and the surprising rule that limit≤2 or a slug switches the response to full text, which an agent could not guess from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and its filters before the return-value clause. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back, and the full-text trigger condition. Minor gaps remain — ranking/ordering, pagination beyond limit, and behavior on an unfiltered call — but nothing critical is missing.

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 86%, so the schema already explains q, role, slug, type, domain and maturity. The description contributes the limit≤2 full-text behavior, which the schema does not mention, but otherwise restates the filter set rather than adding new semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb (Поиск) and resource (материалы базы знаний RuForge), enumerates the content types and the filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name the closest siblings (ruforge_kb_article, ruforge_kb_recommend), so the differentiation from those has to be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list and by the note that slug returns full text, which hints at when to use this over a direct article fetch. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and nothing tells the agent how this differs from ruforge_kb_recommend, nor what happens with an empty query given zero required parameters.

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