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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it searches only published profiles, returns up to 20 profiles with page links, and excludes contacts. It does not explain result ordering or pagination behavior, but annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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 three tight sentences with the tool's scope and result cap front-loaded, followed by the important contact handoff. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundant repetition.

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 output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: scope, filters, result cap, and contact handoff are all covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. It could be stronger by mentioning ordering or pagination, but misses nothing critical for invocation.

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 description summarizes the main filter dimensions (text, category, city, video), which maps to several parameters, but the schema already documents those parameters in more detail. It adds little for limit and offset, and with 67% schema description coverage this is a baseline-level contribution.

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 specific verb ('Поиск') and resource ('опубликованных анкет артистов и коллективов') along with the catalog scope, geography, and supported filters. It also distinguishes itself from get_artist by explicitly handing off contacts to that sibling.

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?

It clearly indicates the search use case and routes contact retrieval to get_artist, which is a useful alternative-tool handoff. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over list_categories/list_cities or when not to use it, so some guidance remains implicit.

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