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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: short queries are rejected with a validation error rather than returning empty results, LIKE wildcards are treated literally, and only problem statements are searched. This gives agents reliable expectations about edge-case 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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core purpose and scope, then covers parameters, return shape, language, and validation behavior without filler. Every sentence adds actionable information for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the exact JSON response shape, including pagination fields and per-problem fields. Combined with parameter details and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to construct a correct call and interpret the response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query length requirements, defaults, and bounds. The description mostly restates these details rather than adding new parameter meaning. It does reinforce important behavior, but the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over the Russian problem statements.' It further distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it searches 'PROBLEMS ONLY — never articles or news,' which separates it from any broad content search and from sibling list/retrieval tools.

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 communicates when to use the tool—when a full-text keyword search over problem statements is needed rather than retrieving or listing known problems. It also gives practical constraints: query must be Russian and at least 5 non-whitespace characters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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