api_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search spans both specs regardless of MCP_TOOL_FILTER and that matching is case-insensitive, but it says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or what a match looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after; nothing is wasted.

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 should ideally hint at what a match/result contains, which it does not. The scope statement partially compensates, but an agent still lacks detail on result shape for this single-parameter search tool.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already documented as a case-insensitive substring, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the set of fields that are actually searched (name/path/description/tag), a marginal but real gain over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Поиск инструментов SHM') and names the searchable fields (name/path/description/tag), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like api_describe or api_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description clarifies the search scope (both admin and user specs, ignoring MCP_TOOL_FILTER), which implies when it is useful for discovery. However, it never says when to use this versus api_describe or other lookup siblings, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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