search_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of result limits, matching semantics (partial vs exact), or whether the query is case-sensitive.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the searchable dimensions with zero filler.

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 simple read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no note on how results are ranked or filtered by course/faculty, it leaves the agent without guidance on result interpretation.

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 each parameter (query, course, faculty) is already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates the searchable facets but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., whether faculty and course combine as AND filters). Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (поиск) and resource (учебные групп БГУИР) and enumerates the searchable facets (номер, специальность, курс, факультет). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_teachers or get_group_info, which retrieve rather than search.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_teachers (a sibling search tool) or iis_get_group_info (a direct lookup). The usage context is only implied by the presence of a query parameter, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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