get_search_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: the result describes the state of the currently connected server, implying per-server variability and that capabilities may differ by deployment. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free or that it requires an active connection, which would matter for a capability probe.

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 short sentence with no filler, though it is a dense noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action, which slightly slows parsing. Nothing redundant is included.

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?

The tool is trivial (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values; it only needs to say what is inspected, which it does. A note on when to invoke it and that it is a safe read would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly frames the output as server-scoped rather than parameterized.

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 is a noun phrase listing what the tool returns: current sections, filter support, and page availability on the connected server. That conveys the resource being inspected, but there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings such as search_cases or search_fas_decisions, so the agent must infer that this is a capability-probing tool rather than a search itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing states that this should be called before searching to discover supported sections/filters, nor any exclusion relative to the search siblings. The only implicit cue is 'на подключённом сервере', which hints the result is server-dependent, but the agent is left to infer the call sequence.

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