ym_search_methods

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds the return format (JSON list) and ordering ('best first'), which are useful behavioral details. No contradictions with annotations, but the description doesn't disclose additional constraints like authentication or pagination, though these are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted args list, and a return note. Every sentence adds value, with examples and constraints front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers the essential aspects: query semantics, limit bounds, and result ordering. It lacks guidance on when to use it relative to sibling search tools, but that is a minor gap given the read-only nature and clear output schema.

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 documents both parameters: query with free-text examples, and limit with a range (1-50). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 the tool searches the endpoint catalog by keyword, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes bilingual support. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search_methods for other marketplaces, the 'ym_' prefix and 'endpoint catalog' phrasing make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ym_describe_method or ym_map, nor any mention of when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the description of searching the catalog.

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