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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry transparency. It states the tool returns matching APIs, implying a read-only operation, but it never explicitly says it does not modify data or have side effects. It also does not mention rate limits, errors, or pagination, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. It avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to read and understand.

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?

The description, combined with the schema, gives a basic understanding of the tool but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over sibling tools and does not elaborate on the meaning of sort and limit. It is adequate for a simple search function but not fully comprehensive for a user new to these tools.

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?

Only the 'query' parameter has a schema description, leaving 'sort' and 'limit' without explanation. The tool description does not compensate for this low coverage; it provides no additional detail about how sort or limit affect results. Since schema description coverage is below 50% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, the score is low.

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 clearly states that this tool searches the JoJ API marketplace, lists the types of APIs covered, and mentions it returns matching APIs with slugs and links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api or call_endpoint, which likely focus on retrieval or invocation.

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 implies usage for discovering APIs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of its siblings. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use this to find APIs before calling them' or comparisons to get_api/get_endpoint. The context is clear, but explicit contrast is missing.

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