search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as result format, pagination, or edge cases, but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations, a neutral score is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with the verb 'Search' at the front, naming both resources without any unnecessary words. Every part contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has a simple interface with an output schema and read-only annotations, so completeness is partially covered by structured fields. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for either parameter, only names and types. The tool description adds no explanation of what 'query' or 'limit' mean beyond their field names, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. This provides no added value for parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb "Search" and explicitly names both target resources (Yandex Disk and Yandex Wiki). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool wiki_search, which likely covers only Wiki, making the scope unambiguous.

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 the tool is for searching across both Yandex Disk and Yandex Wiki, giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wiki_search or disk-specific tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or comparative guidance.

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