hh_search_methods

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the bilingual search capability, result ordering (best first), and that it returns a JSON list.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, language behavior, result format, and ordering. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields are not required here.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full parameter documentation. It explains query as free text with concrete examples and defines limit as max results with a 1-50 range, both beyond what the bare schema provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb (search) and resource (endpoint catalog) with clear scope: keyword-based search in Russian and English. It differentiates itself from siblings like hh_list_sections and hh_describe_method by being the search-oriented tool.

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 makes the use case clear: find endpoints by keyword when you don't know the exact endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, 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.