search_pages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Поиск' implies read-only, but there is no statement on whether results are paginated, how the url_id preconfigured task interacts with filter_query, ordering, or result completeness. The only behavioral hint is that filtering is by task criteria such as topic, price and tИЦ/PR.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is terse but every clause (search, resource, link-buying goal, filter dimensions) contributes 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the purpose plus filter dimensions are covered. But for a tool with a nested free-form filter object, required url_id, and pagination parameters, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about how to construct filter_query and page through results.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates only partially: 'под URL' maps to url_id and 'темы, цена, тИЦ/PR' hint at filter_query keys, but the free-form nested filter object (additionalProperties: true) is never explained, and page/page_size are entirely unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Поиск страниц площадок' – search for site pages) plus the goal ('для покупки ссылок под URL по заданию'), and the filter criteria (topics, price, tИЦ/PR) sharpen it. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_url_links or list_urls, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Use is implied: find candidate placement pages for a given URL's task, which separates it from tools that list already-created links. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of which sibling to pick for the opposite job (inspecting existing links).

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