fulltext_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses premium requirement, index limitations, and the set of supported kinds. It could mention that the tool is read-only with no side effects, but the search nature implies safety.

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 succinct with three short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core function. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers scope, constraints, and premium requirement. It could mention the nature of results (e.g., matching documents with snippets), but the output schema likely handles this.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the four kind values explicitly, clarifying the default behavior, and noting Russian query syntax and tsquery support, providing context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it performs full-text search inside type-approval document bodies (PDF text). It specifies which kinds are covered (ОТТС/ОТШ/ЗОТТС/ЗОТШ) and explicitly excludes others, distinguishing it from sibling metadata search 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 provides explicit guidance on which kinds are searchable and which are not, and notes the premium feature requirement. It could be improved by directly comparing to sibling kind-specific search tools, but the context is sufficient.

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