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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: that results are restricted to settlement-verified listings by default, and that the call is free ('spends nothing') — meaningful in a paid API catalogue. It stops short of disclosing result ordering, pagination, or how the limit interacts with total matches.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by match scope and then the default filter. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys what matches, what is filtered by default, and the cost profile — enough to call it correctly. It omits any indication of result shape or paging, which is the only notable gap for a search tool.

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 75%, with query, network and verified_only all self-documented in the schema. The description restates the verified_only default behavior but adds nothing for limit or network (e.g. CAIP-2 handling), so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 and resource ('Free-text search across the live catalogue') and enumerates exactly which fields are matched (name, description, category, provider). It is clearly distinguishable from get_api, though it never names list_apis as the non-search alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'free-text search' and the mention of the verified_only default, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to list_apis for unfiltered browsing or get_api for detail retrieval. The agent must infer the boundary from the siblings' names.

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