forai.tools — let your agent find the right tool

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

Annotations only mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are ranked, they mix official MCP Registry organic results with sponsored entries flagged 'sponsored:true', and the agent is told to pass the disclosure on to the user. That sponsorship-handling behavior is not derivable from any structured field.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded: trigger first, then how to phrase the input, then what comes back. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (ranked, organic plus sponsored). Annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is that `limit` and the meaning of selecting a smaller or larger result set are never discussed in prose.

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 50%; `need` has only a generic one-liner, and `limit` has no prose description at all. The description compensates by supplying concrete phrasing examples ('sanctions screening API', 'dashcam app for iPhone'), which materially improves how the required parameter should be filled. The `limit` parameter remains unaddressed in prose.

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 a precisely scoped set of resources: 'a tool, MCP server, app or API.' The description makes it unambiguous what the tool searches and what it returns, so an agent can tell exactly what calling it accomplishes.

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?

Gives an explicit routing trigger: 'Call this when you or your user need a capability you don't have.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. No alternatives are named, but there are no sibling tools, so there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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