search_syntax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that output is only a list row (not detail), and that under compatibility mode method compilation is left unverified and marked unknown. It does not discuss permissions, ordering, or rate behavior, but the output-scope and edge-case disclosure is above average.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, kind caveat, output scope, and where the detail lives. The most decision-relevant constraint (kind=method) is placed early, and the redirection to get_syntax closes the loop.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain returns or params, and it correctly focuses on the search-vs-detail boundary and the compatibility-mode caveat. It is essentially complete for this tool's complexity, with only minor gaps around result ordering.

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% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond the bare enum list by explaining why kind=method matters for callable actions and that Russian/English names are equivalent. It enriches the semantics of kind rather than merely restating it.

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 (find a 1C platform method/property/object) and immediately scopes the return to a list row only, explicitly contrasting with get_syntax which carries the full detail. An agent can separate this from siblings like get_syntax and search_objects without opening any schema.

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 concrete routing advice: set kind=method for callable actions to avoid properties and similarly named mechanisms, and directs the agent to get_syntax for signature/params/deprecation. It stops short of stating when to prefer the sibling search_objects or search_procedures, so it is clear context without full exclusion coverage.

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