search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'search' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond schema. The description adds the 'cross-registry' scope but lacks additional behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words that front-loads the core purpose. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 an output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description adequately states the cross-registry scope. However, it could provide more context on matching behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial, case sensitivity) which is not covered by the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'document number' which maps to the 'number' parameter, but does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (full or partial match). No value added for page or page_size parameters.

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 'Cross-registry search by document number across all hpt.su kinds' uses specific verb (search) and resource (document number across all kinds), distinguishing it from sibling search tools that are more specific (e.g., search_by_vin, search_certificates). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 usage for document number-based searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fulltext_search or search_by_vin. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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