sbis_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: queries work in Russian and Englishcars and results are returned as a JSON list ordered best-first. No contradictions detected.

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: a one-sentence purpose, two concise argument definitions, and one line for return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 with an output schema, the description covers inputs, supported languages, result ordering, and return type. It could mention how to follow up with sbis_describe_method after finding a match, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains query as free text with concrete Russian and English examples, and defines limit as max results with a 1-50 range. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 and resource: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword'. It also names supported languages and the return format, making the tool's role clear and easily distinguished from sibling call/write/delete/get tools.

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 clearly implies use when you need to discover endpoints by free-text keyword rather than invoking them, and notes results are ordered best-first. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as sbis_describe_method or sbis_get_section, but the usage context is clear enough.

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