search_zotch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'Search ЗОТШ'. It does not disclose that the tool supports pagination (via page and page_size parameters), filtering by multiple fields, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of key behaviors.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is extremely concise with no extraneous words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's 11 parameters, the existence of multiple sibling search tools, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the search returns, how pagination works, or how the tool fits into the broader suite of search tools. Much-needed context is missing.

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 score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive for each parameter.

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 the resource being searched ('ЗОТШ') and provides a parenthetical explanation of what that acronym stands for ('chassis conformity assessment conclusion'). However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools that also search different types of certificates or assessments, such as search_otch or search_zotts.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate to use search_zotch instead of other search tools, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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