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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds context beyond that: it is a full-text search, it returns a markdown version plus a text fragment, and it identifies the authoritative source. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 with no filler; the core action, scope, return components, and source are all front-loaded. It is tight and readable, missing only an explicit sibling pointer that would make it exceptional.

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 low parameter count, the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, this description is nearly sufficient for safe invocation. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit sibling distinction versus search_machines.

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 schema already documents both parameters completely (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds semantic value by enumerating the searchable domains and formats, helping the agent formulate better query terms than the schema description alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Полнотекстовый поиск по обучающим курсам завода') and lists the topical scope (фрезы, механика, электроника, Mach3, ArtCAM, etc.). It is clear and precise, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_machines.

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 domain and the example queries in the schema imply when this tool is appropriate: technical questions about factory training materials and guides. However, the description itself does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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