Поиск объектов

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (total and items {section, id, title}), which is important given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing matching semantics (case sensitivity, ranking, truncation at limit), which is a real remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-call condition, then the return shape, then routing to alternatives and next steps. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the name or the schema.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to prefer it, what it returns structurally, and where to go next. Nothing essential to a correct first invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the `text` parameter matches against ID, title and description specifically, and `section` is framed as restricting the otherwise all-section search. That field-level detail is genuinely beyond "Подстрока для поиска".

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?

Names a specific operation (substring search over ID/title/description) and the resource (entities across all sections or one section), and explicitly contrasts itself with sibling list_entities. An agent can distinguish it from get_entity / list_entities / find_relation_paths without opening a schema.

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?

States the triggering condition explicitly ("известно только примерное название объекта"), names the alternative (list_entities) and the condition that selects it (section and field conditions known precisely), and prescribes the follow-up tools (get_entity, get_relations) on a found id.

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