vk_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 that queries work in Russian and English and that results are returned best-first, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose anything further about the catalog's size, latency, or failure modes, so it sits at a solid-but-not-rich level.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block and a one-line return note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes a JSON list of matching endpoints. Both parameters are documented and the language coverage is called out. The main gap is the absence of any pointer to the natural next step (vk_describe_method) after a search hit.

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 compensate, and it largely does: query is described as free text with concrete examples in both supported languages, and limit is bounded as 1-50 with its role as a max-result cap. It omits the limit default (15) that only the schema supplies, but the added meaning is substantial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword'. It also names the catalog scope and the bilingual capability, which distinguishes it from the sibling catalog tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like vk_describe_method or vk_list_sections, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 — an agent would use this to find an endpoint before describing or calling it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over vk_list_sections or vk_get_section, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'best first' ordering hints at intent but does not define a workflow.

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