search_by_role

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 indicates a read-only search action ('находит') but does not disclose potential limitations such as partial matching behavior, output format, or pagination. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It implies the return value (profiles and business functions) sufficiently, though it does not elaborate on matching behavior or output format.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for role_name, including case-insensitivity and examples. The tool description adds the business context (understanding which profile a role belongs to) and a different example, which supplements the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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 tool finds access profiles and 1C business functions by role name, with a concrete example ('бит_ИсполнительКазначейства'). The verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings such as search_instructions or validate_roles.

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?

It provides a clear use case for 1C administrators who see a role and want to discover its associated profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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