search_its

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action (search) and resource (ITS knowledge base) but omits critical behavioral traits such as side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature. The phrase 'with source identifiers' gives some hint but is insufficient.

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 concise sentence in Russian, which is efficient but lacks crucial details. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but the absence of parameter information makes it less useful. It earns its place but could be more informative.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. The existence of an output schema (not shown) partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to cover parameter usage or behavioral constraints. More detail is needed for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, ssl_version, configuration). The phrase 'with source identifiers' might hint at one parameter but is ambiguous. Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot properly invoke the tool.

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 searches for materials in the ITS knowledge base, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_1c_documentation. The mention of 'source identifiers' adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_1c_documentation or fetch_its. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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