search_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful behavioral details: Russian full-text matching, typo tolerance, and preservation of source links. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as pagination, response shape, and any restrictions or rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and distinguishing features, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly with full confidence. The agent can guess the required query and optional filters, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of response format information leave notable gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It provides almost no parameter semantics: it does not clarify what 'query' means beyond search text, nor does it explain 'limit', 'teacher_id', or 'department_id'. The agent is left to infer the meaning of the filter parameters from their names alone.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'review text', and the specifics of Russian full-text matching, typo tolerance, and preserving source links help distinguish it from sibling tools like search_teachers. It does not explicitly contrast with get_teacher_reviews, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_teacher_reviews or search_teachers. The description implies a text-based search use case but does not state when to prefer this over browsing reviews via a teacher profile, nor does it mention filtering capabilities or exclusions.

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