search_tools

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: zero auth/free, minimal token consumption, and that results are domain SSE endpoints. However it omits return shape, whether results are ranked, pagination/truncation behavior when limit is hit, and what an empty result means.

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 core purpose and the Args block are front-loaded and efficient, but the 'Keywords:' line is SEO-style keyword stuffing that restates the tool name and adds no decision-relevant information. Trimming it would tighten the definition.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets enough to invoke the tool (auth profile, all three params, result nature), but not enough to interpret the response — no ranking, ordering, or truncation semantics for the returned tool list. Adequate but with a clear gap for a discovery tool whose output drives subsequent calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all three params with a natural-language query example set, a domain filter with enumerated example values ('defi', 'security', 'agentops', 'resilience'), and the limit default of 5. It does not state whether query and domain compose or how empty query behaves, so it stops short of a 5.

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+resource: 'search Sairen's capabilities and retrieve domain SSE endpoints', plus a 'Progressive Tool Discovery' framing. It is clearly a meta/discovery tool distinct from the concrete sibling tools (get_dex_price, check_service_health, etc.), though 'SSE endpoints' is jargon that is not fully unpacked.

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 '[Free / Zero Auth]' tag and 'discover relevant microservice tools on demand' imply the when-to-use context (agent doesn't yet know which capability to call), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no statement that this is the entry point before calling a discovered tool, and no alternatives named.

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