Search KIT API operations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the fixed corpus size (169 operations) and the fact that the underlying docs are Russian, so Russian keywords match. It does not state result ordering/ranking or how results are formatted, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: what is searched, how matching/language works, and the follow-up workflow. The most decision-relevant information (scope and what it searches) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what a result looks like, but the phrase 'any operation found here can be executed with kit_request' implies results yield an operation identifier usable downstream. With 100% schema coverage on the three inputs and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete.

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 100%, so query, tag, and limit are all documented in the schema itself, including the token-AND matching rule. The description's contribution is mostly the cross-cutting note that Russian keywords work, which is useful but not parameter syntax the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the full catalog of all 169 Yandex KIT API operations by keyword') and pins down scope precisely, including which fields are matched (operationId, URL path, tag, Russian summary/description). An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery tool from the execution siblings kit_request and get_operation_schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the workflow: find an operation here, inspect it with get_operation_schema, then execute with kit_request. This is exactly the when-to-use / what-next guidance that eliminates tool-selection ambiguity among three related catalog tools.

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