aspro_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context: it searches across specific fields and handles Russian inflection and multi-word queries. This gives the agent a better understanding of how queries are processed and what results to expect, without contradicting the annotation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a useful behavioral note. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, search target, and unique query handling. It does not describe return format or pagination, but these are less critical for a keyword-search tool and the schema covers 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?

The schema already describes query as 'case-insensitive' and limit with max/default, but the description enriches the query semantics by mentioning Russian inflection and multi-word query support, adding meaning that the schema does not provide.

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: 'Search operations by keyword across module/entity/method/path/description/tags.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('operations') and search scope, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like aspro_list_modules or aspro_describe.

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 implies usage: use when you need to find operations by keyword. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or list exclusions, but the clear focus on keyword-based search provides sufficient context for when this tool is appropriate.

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