seodata_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful traits: coverage is limited to *published* articles (drafts excluded) and the call requires the content:read scope. It says nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or what happens with very broad queries, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

One sentence plus a short scope tag, with the search target and its scope front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, coverage boundary, and required auth scope, which is close to sufficient. It leaves result volume/ordering behavior unstated, which is a minor gap for a search endpoint.

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 100% (the single q parameter is documented with a 2-character minimum), so the baseline is 3. The description does clarify that q matches against title, lead, and content, which helps an agent phrase queries, but adds no syntax, operators, or matching-behavior detail beyond that.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Полнотекстовый поиск по всем опубликованным статьям владельца') and even enumerates the searched fields (заголовок, лид, контент), which clearly separates it from a plain listing tool. It does not name any sibling such as seodata_list_articles, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over seodata_list_articles or seodata_get_article, and no guidance on query construction beyond the schema's minimum length. The only usage-shaped information is the implicit restriction to published articles, which is folded into the purpose statement rather than presented as a when-to-use rule.

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