Search KIT API operations

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, while the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it matches operationId, URL path, tag, and Russian summary/description, and explains the API docs are in Russian so Russian keywords work. This affects how an agent formulates queries and is a real value-add beyond the annotation.

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 information: scope, search behavior/language nuance, and the downstream workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no redundant wording.

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 discovery tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched (scope, fields, language) and how results connect to execution via kit_request and inspection via get_operation_schema. A slight gap is the lack of detail about result shape, but the catalog framing makes it predictable.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantics for `query` – that Russian terms like 'категории' are valid because the underlying summaries are Russian. This supplements the schema's token-match rule with practical language guidance.

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, and scope: 'Search the full catalog of all 168 Yandex KIT API operations by keyword'. It also specifies matching targets (operationId, URL path, tag, summaries), making it clearly distinct from the many CRUD sibling tools.

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 maps the workflow: any operation found here can be executed with kit_request, and get_operation_schema should be used first to inspect parameters. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when the operation is already known), but it cleanly positions the tool relative to the two most relevant siblings.

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