diadoc_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it works in both Russian and English, returns results best-first, and enforces a result limit of 1-50. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a short Args block and a return statement. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 and readOnlyHint, the description is complete. It provides query examples, limit constraints, and return behavior, while the output schema covers the exact result shape. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It explains query as free text with concrete examples ('остатки', 'stocks', 'update price') and defines limit as 'max results (1-50)', adding practical meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword.' It also mentions bilingual matching and returns a list of endpoints, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diadoc_describe_method, diadoc_call_method, or diadoc_get_raw.

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 this tool when you need to find endpoints by keyword. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives such as diadoc_describe_method or diadoc_list_sections, leaving some routing to inference.

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