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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination and sortability, but does not state that the operation is read-only, how filters combine (match any/all is in schema but not explained), what happens on empty results, or response structure. The behavioral traits are minimal and rely heavily on the schema.

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 zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded (paginated, sortable list, filters), and the routing advice is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 tool with 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention pagination mechanics (page/limit), that some filters are provider-only, what 'view' or 'fields' do, or return format. It leaves several parameters unexplained and provides only a high-level overview plus a sibling routing note.

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 55%, so the description should partially compensate. It does summarize primary filter categories, which maps to parameters like tags, providers, artifact_types, industry, region, and band, adding a high-level grouping. However, it does not explain undocumented parameters such as area, min_score, context, or provider-only flags. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Paginated, sortable list of APIs across providers'. It lists distinctive filters (tag, provider, artifact type, industry, region, rating band) that differentiate it from sibling find_* tools. The reference to apis_io_search as a cross-type alternative explicitly distinguishes it from that sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 instruction 'Use apis_io_search first for a cross-type overview' gives a clear condition for selecting an alternative tool. It implies that this tool is for API-specific searches. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus other find_* tools (e.g., find_providers) beyond the one contrast, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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