search_methods

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description adds real behavioral detail: a short owner name must be unique or the call is rejected with candidates, assembly is only for disambiguation, and limit is capped at 2000. It does not mention cost or auth, but the added rejection/uniqueness semantics are substantive.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and return shape, then a compact Args list, then the return envelope. Slightly redundant — the owner semantics are stated twice (once in the intro, once in Args) — but otherwise efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the return envelope ({ok, handle, total, offset, limit, returned, has_more, items}) and clarifying that total is the true match count. Combined with full param coverage, it is nearly complete; only the numeric defaults are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines pattern (case-insensitive substring), offset (skip count for paging), limit (page size, max 2000), owner (scoped, unique-short-name rule), and assembly. It omits the default values (limit=100, offset=0) present in the schema, a minor gap.

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+resource ("按名字搜索方法") and immediately lists what is returned (owning class, return type, token), so an agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_classes/search_fields via the method-name focus and the owner cross-reference, though it never names those siblings explicitly as alternatives.

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?

It gives useful in-context guidance — offset pairs with total/has_more for paging, and assembly exists only for owner disambiguation — but it never says when to choose this over search_fields, search_classes, or find_hook_target. Usage is implied rather than stated against alternatives.

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