Сквозной поиск

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns a flat list with collection and UUID, which is useful behavioral detail. No further constraints (e.g., rate limits, pagination) are disclosed, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 two sentences with focused, front-loaded information. The first sentence conveys the core functionality, and the second provides a usage example. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the return format (flat list with collection and UUID), default collections, and usage context. Missing details like error behavior or sorting are minor given the simplicity. Overall, it sufficiently informs an agent's decision.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by stating default collections (Contact, Account, Lead, Opportunity) and that non-existent collections are ignored, as well as the default value of 'top' (5). These details are not in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool does substring search across Name fields in specific collections (Contact, Account, Lead, Opportunity) and returns a flat list with collection and UUID. It also gives a concrete example query context. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bpm_search_records, though not directly named.

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 provides a clear usage scenario (e.g., 'найди всё про Иванова'), which helps an agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like bpm_search_records, which could be more appropriate for specific searches.

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