rx_find_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: content is not searchable, the default result set is restricted to official document types, and at least one filter must be supplied. It also describes the result row layout (#Id title · kind · number · state · author · date), though it does not cover permissions or rate/latency characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, defaults, output format and next steps in tightly packed sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully specifies the returned row format, and it covers scope defaults, the minimum-condition rule, and the follow-up tools. For a 9-parameter filtered search, nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the enum-like state values and all_types semantics). The description largely restates the searchable fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (document search in Directum RX) and enumerates the exact searchable card fields (title, kind, author, registration number, dates, state), so it cannot be confused with a list or fetch operation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not search by content and routing reference-book lookups to rx_find_entity.

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?

Gives an explicit negative boundary ('По содержимому не ищет'), the default scope (official documents only) versus the all_types=true widening, a hard precondition ('Нужно хотя бы одно условие'), and a follow-up path (rx_get_document / rx_get_document_text). It names the alternative tool for other entity types.

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