crpt_search_methods

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, lowering the baseline. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: bilingual keyword support, result ordering, JSON list return format, and the 1-50 limit constraint. This is meaningful incremental information.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by clearly formatted args and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

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 search tool with an output schema available, the description covers everything needed: purpose, parameter semantics, language behavior, result ordering, and limits. Nothing essential is missing.

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 descriptions are 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It does so excellently: 'query' is explained as free text with concrete bilingual examples, and 'limit' is given a range and default behavior. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword.' It also adds meaningful scope details (Russian/English support, best-first ordering). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but its core action is 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 when to use this tool: whenever you need to find endpoints by keyword. It gives concrete query examples and a limit range, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so usage context is clear but not explicit about exclusions.

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