wb_subjects_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool performs a search, which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not describe return format, matching behavior, or whether results are only top-level categories. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a clarifying Russian gloss. There is no wasted text, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 search tool with two optional parameters, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for basic invocation. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should have clarified what the search returns (e.g., matching subject IDs and names), and it does not explain the effect of 'limit'.

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 only 50%: 'name' is described as 'search by name', but 'limit' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching WB subjects/categories, with the purpose of card creation. It identifies a specific verb and resource, making the tool's role understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like wb_subject_charcs or wb_categories_parent.

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 'for card creation' gives a clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident enough for an agent to select it over unrelated tools.

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