catalog_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return content ('candidates with PD-basis') and a failure mode ('offline → honest error'), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how results are ranked/truncated.

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 terse sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause adds a distinct fact (external source, return shape, offline behavior). Slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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 simple one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and one failure mode, which is adequate. It still leaves the author parameter semantics and when-to-use guidance uncovered.

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 0% and the single 'author' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'фигуры' and adds no format guidance (full name? surname? transliteration?), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (поиск) and resource (PD-издания фигуры), plus an explicit scope boundary (ВНЕ каталога, via Gutenberg/gutendex). This boundary implicitly separates it from the catalog_list/catalog_verify siblings that operate inside the catalog, though no sibling is named directly.

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 phrase 'ВНЕ каталога' implies you should reach for this when the figure is not in the local catalog, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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