wb_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON list ordered 'best first' and specifies the limit range (1-50), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions or rate limits, but given the read-only and simple nature, this is adequate.

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 brief and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by an Args section that explains each parameter, and a Returns line. There is zero fluff; every sentence provides actionable information. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 simple search tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to use the parameters, and what to expect in the response (JSON list, sorted by relevance). The output schema is present, so detailed return structure is not required. The bilingual note is a nice extra. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema provides only type and default for both parameters, with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that 'query' is free text with concrete examples ('остатки', 'stocks', 'update price') and that 'limit' is capped at 1-50. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on query syntax or matching behavior beyond the examples.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('the endpoint catalog'), and a method ('by keyword'). It also adds a unique feature—bilingual support (Russian and English)—that distinguishes it from generic search tools. The purpose is immediately unambiguous and does not rely on the tool name alone.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_map or wb_list_sections. Its usage is implied by its nature as a search tool, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it or what situations it is not suited for. The only implicit context is that it returns matching endpoints, suggesting it is for discovery before calling methods.

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