Поиск по всей CRM

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds context by showing that a single query spans multiple CRM entity types and is meant to resolve internal IDs, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the searchable entities and immediately gives the practical use case, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

The description explains the purpose and when to use the tool well, but there is no output schema and no explicit statement about what the search returns (e.g., a list of matches with entity types and IDs). The missing return-value detail leaves a noticeable gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already says 'name, surname, phone or record number'. The tool description mostly repeats this, adding no new details about matching behavior, case sensitivity, or input formatting.

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 defines a global search over many entity types (teachers, students, leads, payments, etc.) by name, phone, or record number. It distinguishes itself from the list_/get_ sibling tools by positioning search as the entry point when internal IDs are unknown.

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 explicitly states when to start using this tool: when a name or phone is known but internal IDs are not. It implies that list_/get_ tools should be used afterward, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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