hh_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: bidirectional Russian/English search, a best-first result ordering, and the 1-50 limit bound. It does not mention pagination or result truncation behavior, a minor gap.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the core action before the Args block. The Args block format is slightly boilerplate but each line earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still notes the JSON list shape and ordering. Combined with the readOnly annotations, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only the missing default and pagination caveats hold it below 5.

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 the full burden and does so well: 'query' is defined as free text with three concrete examples, and 'limit' is described as max results with an explicit 1-50 range. It does not mention the default value of 15, which the schema supplies.

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) and notes the keyword works in both Russian and English. This distinguishes it from siblings like hh_call_method or hh_list_sections, though it never explicitly contrasts with the other lookup tool hh_describe_method.

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: use it to find endpoints by keyword when you know a term but not the exact method. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hh_describe_method, hh_list_sections, or hh_map, and no exclusions are given.

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