find_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool is free, requires no key, returns ready-to-run examples, prices, and guide links, and that it responds honestly reports when nothing fits. It does not explicitly state that the tool only recommends operations and does not execute them, though 'find' and 'get matching operations' strongly implies this.

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 somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, input guidance, output contents, cost/auth traits, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then gives practical examples, with only mild promotional phrasing like 'it is faster than scanning all of them.'

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 two-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, how to phrase input, what results contain, the fact that it is free and keyless, and how it handles no-match cases. Nothing essential is missing.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema: it specifies that queries may be in English or German and provides three illustrative examples and clarifies what the response contains. This extra context helps an agent craft a better query value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the right bigapi operation for a task.' It gives concrete examples of queries and states what the result contains (matching operations, example, price, guide link). This clearly distinguishes it from the many operation-specific siblings like pdf_merge or image_process.

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 an explicit usage context: 'Start here when you are unsure which bigapi tool fits; it is faster than scanning all of them.' It explains what to type and what to expect. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as when the caller already knows the exact operation.

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