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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys that this is a read-only search operation and specifies the return fields (method, path, summary). It does not discuss edge cases like no matches or matching semantics, but nothing about the tool suggests destructive or surprising behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output are stated first, followed by concrete usage examples and the relevant follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool, the description is complete: it says what to search, what results contain, how to phrase queries, and what to do next. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and the return shape is described in prose.

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. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by giving natural-language examples of what query should contain ('submit an order', 'list positions', 'set a risk control') and clarifying that the query describes the desired endpoint behavior rather than a literal search string.

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 names a specific action ('Search the Anthid REST API reference') and states exactly what it returns ('matching endpoints with their method, path, and summary'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like describe_anthid_endpoint, which is explicitly positioned as the follow-up for parameter details.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to find which endpoint does something') and directs it to describe_anthid_endpoint after a match. It does not, however, contrast this tool with other sibling search/browse tools such as search_anthid_site or list_anthid_endpoints, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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