search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance not in the schema — that 'limit' controls results per category rather than a total — but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or the read-only scope beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; each clause maps to a real function or parameter. Slightly terse given the missing query semantics, but sized appropriately.

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 is simple and read-only, the output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two optional parameters. The main gap is the undefined required 'query' parameter, but overall the description is adequate 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and it only partially compensates: it explains that 'type' narrows the search and that 'limit' is per-category (a genuinely useful detail not derivable from the schema). The required 'query' parameter is left entirely undefined, and the enum values for 'type' are only in the schema.

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 and resource ('Поиск по каталогу Яндекс Музыки' / search the Yandex Music catalog), which is clear and immediately distinguishable from the specific retrieval siblings like get_chart or get_liked_tracks since it is the only general search tool. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling.

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 the many specialized siblings (get_chart, get_similar_tracks, get_liked_tracks, etc.). The sentence 'type сужает поиск' describes a parameter effect, not a usage condition or alternative, leaving the agent to infer when a general catalog search is appropriate.

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