search_services

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 that the tool searches the directory and lists filter parameters, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or what the return format is. Behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or empty result handling are absent.

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 concise: a title, a one-sentence summary, then a clear list of parameter explanations. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it is missing key details like return format (what does the result list contain?), default ordering, or whether search is fuzzy/exact. These gaps limit completeness to a 3.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: query searches name/description/capabilities, category is an optional filter, tags is optional, and limit sets max results (default 10). This compensates well for the bare schema, earning a 4.

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 clearly states 'Nach AI-Agent-Services suchen' and explains that it searches the directory for services with specific capabilities. The verb 'search' and resource 'services' are explicit, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_service, list_categories) implies its role as a broader search tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it gets a 4.

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 usage: when you want to find services by query, category, or tags. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_service or top_services, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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