x5_search_purchases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: local search, case-insensitive matching, ё/е handling, and available filter dimensions. No contradiction with 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?

One dense sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause adds a distinct piece of information: search target, matching behavior, filters, and pagination.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers query semantics, filters, and pagination. It does not describe the return shape or default limit, but the tool name and schema defaults partially fill that gap, leaving only a minor completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description compensates by indicating the meaning of the key parameter groups: product-name query, date filters, network filter, category filter, and limit/offset. It does not enumerate exact parameter names or enum values, but the schema provides those structural constraints.

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 action and resource: 'Локальный поиск по названию товара' (local search by product name). It adds matching semantics like case-insensitivity and ё/е normalization, and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* 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 implies its usage: use this tool when searching purchases by product name with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative sibling tool, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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