zabbix_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add useful value by disclosing what the result contains: the tool that runs each method and whether the method is allowed, which is behavioral information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence carries the return-value hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only search, the definition covers purpose and enough about the response shape to be callable without an output schema. It stops short of stating the workflow relationship to zabbix_describe_method, which is the only real 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema with an example, while limit carries only type/default/bounds. The description's "by name" narrows what query matches against (method names) but adds nothing about limit or how multi-word queries behave, leaving it at the baseline.

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?

"Find Zabbix 7.4 API methods by name" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope, so the agent knows this is a discovery/lookup tool rather than an API executor. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like zabbix_describe_method or zabbix_raw_api, which weakens the differentiation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this is the right precursor step before zabbix_describe_method or zabbix_raw_api.

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