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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses the result envelope (slug, one-line summary, base URL, docs) and a result cap, which is essential since there is no output schema. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only catalog search that is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the capability, then the return shape, then the next step. The parenthetical example list earns its space by teaching query formulation, and there is 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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what to do next. The only loose end is how the limit parameter interacts with the stated ten-result ceiling.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the query parameter is already documented in the schema and the description's examples largely restate its intent, though they do usefully illustrate phrasing. The limit parameter is never explained in the description and appears to conflict with 'Returns up to 10 matches' given the schema maximum of 25.

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 ('Find') and resource ('APIs') plus the retrieval key (the data they provide), which cleanly separates it from get_api and call_api. The five inline examples ('sanctions screening', 'IP geolocation', 'company by domain') make the query model unambiguous.

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 sequences the workflow: 'Follow with get_api for the endpoints' tells the agent this is the discovery entry point and what comes next. It does not mention call_api, the other sibling, so there is a small remaining inference about which tool ultimately executes a request.

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