search_apirro_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about result counts, pagination, ranking behavior, or what happens with zero matches — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb and scope land immediately. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched. It is missing any sense of result behavior or coverage limits, which an agent would want before relying on it as a retrieval source.

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% with a single documented "query" parameter that even includes example terms, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no query syntax, matching rules, or multi-term behavior beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ("Search") and resource ("published Apirro resources, guides, and blog posts") with a domain qualifier (agentic commerce), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like get_agentic_commerce_glossary or scan_agent_readiness, but the function is distinct enough to infer.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent has to guess whether this tool or a sibling (e.g. get_agentic_commerce_overview) is the right entry point for topical information.

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