diadoc_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 real behavioral context beyond that: the search is bilingual (Russian and English) and results come back ranked best-first. It does not mention pagination or a result ceiling cap, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; each line earns its place with the exception of the mildly redundant 'Returns JSON list of matching endpoints.' No padding or narrative filler.

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 return structure need not be described, and both parameters are documented against a 0% schema coverage gap. For a low-complexity, flat-schema search tool this is close to complete; only the lack of a next-step pointer to the describe/call siblings is a 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning and it largely does: query is free text with concrete example strings, and limit is given the range 1-50, which the schema omits beyond a default of 15. It does not explain limit's interaction with result ordering, so not a 5.

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 and resource: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword.' An agent can distinguish it from retrieval siblings such as diadoc_get_section or diadoc_describe_method. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it misses the top band.

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 implied by 'search the endpoint catalog' with example queries, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over diadoc_list_sections, diadoc_map, or diadoc_describe_method, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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