search_actions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'search' and lists mode values; it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether permissions are required, or what happens with no matches. The non-mutating nature of search is inferable but not explicit.

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 very short and front-loaded: the operation is stated first and there is no filler. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic, but that still serves conciseness well.

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?

Even though the parameter count is small and an output schema exists, the description omits query semantics, mode semantics, and how this tool relates to siblings like describe_action or run_read. It is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke reliably.

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 for both parameters. It adds allowed values for mode ('read, write or any') but does not explain what mode means or what the query should contain, leaving query entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Поиск' = search) and a resource ('действий каталога' = catalog actions), and it adds the mode filter. It does not precisely define what counts as an 'action' or how it differs from siblings like describe_action, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 call search_actions rather than list_accounts, describe_action, or get_operation_log. The mode values hint at filtering, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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