search_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. It discloses that this is a full-text keyword search over a knowledge base and that results include a relevance score, which is meaningful behavioral context for a search operation. It does not explicitly state read-only or edge-case behavior, but the search semantics are clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value (resource, search type, relevance, usage context). There is no redundancy or 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it works (full-text keyword search), what it returns (relevant instructions with relevance score), and when to use it. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; it only echoes the idea of keyword search, while the query examples in the schema are already present. No additional semantic value is provided for 'limit' or 'query' beyond their existing descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ищет') and identifies the exact resource ('инструкции пользователя 1С.БИТ') along with the search mechanism ('по ключевым словам (полнотекстовый поиск по базе знаний)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_instructions and get_instruction by emphasizing keyword-based full-text search and relevance scoring.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('как сформировать...', 'где найти...', 'как заполнить...') for answering user questions about 1C.BIT. While it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like semantic_search_instructions, the context is clear enough for common scenarios.

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