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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral detail: AND-matching across all words, a hard cap of 15 results, and prices in rubles. It doesn't cover failure modes or empty-result behavior, but for a simple read-only search it is well above the minimum.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then result limit and matching rule. Every sentence adds information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description gives the key return characteristics (max 15 items, ruble prices). Minor gap: it doesn't describe which fields are returned or what happens with no matches, but the tool is simple enough that this is not critical.

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% and the query parameter already has examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds matching semantics ('all words must match') that the schema does not state, which is meaningful guidance for constructing a query.

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 and resource ('Поиск ... позиций меню' / 'Search menu items'), and adds the scope detail that it searches both name and description. This clearly separates it from listing siblings like get_menu, get_kids_menu, and get_specials.

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?

Search semantics are implied by the verb, but the description never says when to use this instead of get_menu or get_kids_menu, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer it, but the routing guidance is not explicit.

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