search_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the limited output shape (names and counters only) and the failure mode when field information is missing. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a search tool the output limitation is the most important behavioral trait.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, natural-language input, output scope, and the required follow-up with failure warning. There is no filler, and the most actionable guidance is clear and memorable.

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 a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output limitations, and the follow-up needed to write correct code. It could mention alternatives like search_procedures, but the tool relationships are otherwise well handled by naming get_object explicitly.

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, kind, limit, and config. The description adds examples and a limit heuristic but no genuinely new parameter 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 and resource: find configuration objects by natural-language description or partial name, and explicitly notes it returns only names and counters. This distinguishes it from get_object, which must be called afterward for field metadata.

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?

Directly instructs the agent to call get_object after searching before writing code or queries, and warns that queries written immediately after search will fail with 'поле не найдено'. Also gives actionable guidance on keeping limit at 10 unless the needed result is absent from the first ten.

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