find_apis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation happens 'vía Pepe' and describes the query format, but it does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, what dependencies exist, or what failure modes might occur. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then gives the key input requirement. No fluff, no repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and intent. However, it omits what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., a list of APIs, a comparison table, a research brief) and doesn't clarify what 'vía Pepe' means in practice. It's workable but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying what kinds of constraints to include in the query (región, SLA, presupuesto) and emphasizes comparison questions and measurable objectives, which goes beyond the schema's format-only description. This helps an agent construct a more effective query.

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 uses specific verbs ('Descubrir/comparar') and a clear resource ('APIs externas'), which distinguishes it from generic search or documentation tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the niche of discovering/comparing external APIs is specific enough. 'Vía Pepe' adds a methodological nuance but isn't fully defined.

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 intended use case—finding or comparing external APIs—is implied clearly, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Given siblings like 'search', 'deep_research', and 'get_documentation', an agent could benefit from clearer routing criteria. The CPQO format is described, but not when to pick this over similar tools.

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