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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses a result cap ('up to 10 matching endpoints') and the returned fields, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or behavior on zero results.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then query guidance, then the handoff to call-endpoint. Each sentence carries information, though the narrowing advice is mildly 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?

For a simple single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, query strategy, and the downstream call-endpoint handoff. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results and any auth requirements.

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 100% for the single query parameter, including examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the generic advice that more specific terms narrow results, which is behavioral rather than semantic detail about the parameter itself.

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 for available Scrappa API endpoints by keyword') and makes the scope explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling call-endpoint, which executes endpoints rather than finding them.

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: search here, then pass the returned name to call-endpoint, and use specific terms to narrow results. It names the alternative tool directly, but does not state when this tool is inappropriate or what to do if nothing matches.

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