Поиск с критериями (рус.)

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds value by explaining that the server compiles criteria into an OData $filter, which clarifies internal behavior beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: alternative to sibling, input format, and use case. No wasted words.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core criteria mechanism. It could mention pagination or rate limits, but those are covered by parameter descriptions. The 'format' parameter indicates output variants, reducing the need to describe return values.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description enhances with examples of Russian operator strings ('содержит', 'равно', etc.) and explains the criteria array structure, adding meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it is an alternative to bpm_get_records with human-readable criteria, specifies input format (array of {field, op, value}) and operator options (Russian or OData). This differentiates it from the sibling tool and provides a specific verb+resource.

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?

Explicitly identifies when to use (when LLM does not want to write OData syntax) and references the alternative bpm_get_records. Lacks explicit when-not conditions, but context is clear enough.

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