crpt_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: multilingual matching (Russian and English), best-first result ordering, and the limit bound. It doesn't mention pagination or total-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then an Args block and a one-line return note; every sentence carries information. The Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose for only two parameters but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values needn't be explained in depth, and the brief 'JSON list of matching endpoints (best first)' is sufficient. With annotations covering safety and both parameters documented, the only untold detail is the limit default.

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%, so the description does the documenting: query is described as free text with three concrete examples, and limit as max results (1-50). It omits the schema's default of 15, a minor gap on an otherwise solid compensation for zero coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (endpoint catalog) with a keyword-based mechanism, which is clear on its own. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like crpt_list_sections and crpt_describe_method (list vs. describe vs. search), but never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you use this to find endpoints when you don't already know their name. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to crpt_describe_method / crpt_call_method as the follow-up step.

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