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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one behavior: include=['content'] inlines document bodies, which is useful. Yet it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is supported (page/limit), or what the response structure looks like. For a search tool, these are notable gaps, though the include hint offers partial transparency.

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 short but structurally awkward. The first sentence fragments into two incomplete clauses that read as stubs. The second sentence is clear and front-loads actionable info (filters, include, sibling). It is not overly verbose, but the broken opening harms readability and impacts the conciseness score.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential usage cues (filters, include, sibling) but omits handling of match, pagination, and response format. It is enough to allow a basic call but leaves an agent uncertain about advanced options and expected returns. Given the complexity, more detail on parameters and output would be warranted.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by grouping q, tags, and providers as filters and explaining that include inlines bodies. However, it omits clarification for match (any/all semantics), page, limit, and context (though context is already explained in schema). This partial compensation is helpful but does not fully cover the under-documented parameters.

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 that the tool returns 'APIs.json indexes' and 'discovery documents', indicating a specific resource type. It also differentiates from find_artifacts by noting cross-type search is handled there, so an agent can distinguish siblings. However, the phrasing is fragmented ('indexes across the catalog. The APIs.json discovery documents themselves.') which slightly muddies the core purpose.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: filters (q / tags / providers) are listed, and the include parameter for inlining bodies is explained. It explicitly names an alternative (find_artifacts) for cross-type search, giving a direct routing cue. It does not enumerate exclusions for specific cases, but the sibling mention covers the most critical ambiguity.

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