search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses lexical search behavior and the requirement to formulate queries in English even for Russian requests. It also specifies the output shape (fragments with id, title, link, and text), instructs the agent to cite the url, and directs to fetch for full pages.

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?

Every sentence is functional: purpose, usage scope, examples, language rule, return format, and integration with fetch. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured, with no redundant filler.

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-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it searches, how to query, what it returns, and what to do for full content. It integrates with the sibling fetch, making the tool pair self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema only says 'Поисковый запрос' (search query), but the description enriches this by explaining the query must be in English due to lexical search and providing transformation examples ('как подключить телеграм' → 'connect telegram bot gateway'). It also clarifies that the user-facing answer can be in the user's language, adding semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Поиск по официальной документации Hermes Agent' (search across official Hermes Agent docs), identifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from sibling fetch by specifying that it returns fragments and that fetch should be used for full pages.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Зови этот инструмент на любой вопрос про Hermes Agent' and provides concrete query examples across many topics. It defines boundaries with its sibling: 'за полной страницей вызывай fetch' (call fetch for full page), leaving no ambiguity about when to use each tool.

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