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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost behavior ('Free to search; you only pay when you invoke'), output characteristics ('exact invocation path and per-call price'), and scope (all APIs including developer-published ones). This goes beyond a simple read-only implication, though it doesn't mention side effects or rate limits.

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 three concise sentences: first defines scope, second describes result usage, third clarifies pricing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers key context: what is searched, what the results contain (path and price), and the cost implication. It doesn't mention pagination or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that 'query' matches name/description/tags/category and 'category' is an optional filter with examples. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the broad search scope, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with 'Search every API on JarvisClaw', which clearly specifies the verb (search) and resource (every API on JarvisClaw), including developer-published APIs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_detail, which presumably targets a specific API, and discover_agents, which targets agents rather than APIs.

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 a usage context: use this tool to find callable APIs, and the returned invocation path and price let you call one directly afterwards. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for the agent to select it over siblings that focus on specific APIs or agent discovery.

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