find_tool

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description fully discloses behavior: it only recommends, never touches files, never spends credit, requires no API key, and reports no-match honestly instead of guessing. This gives an agent a complete safety and expectation profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: output contents, safety/credit behavior, cost/auth, when to use, and failure mode. There is no filler or repetition.

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 is complete: what it returns, how to phrase input, safety, cost/auth, alternatives, and no-match behavior are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke it is left to guesswork.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding query semantics: plain-language tasks, English or German, multiple examples, and the kind of intent that fits this tool rather than run_operation.

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 action ('Find the right bigapi operation') with a clear resource and task scope, and grounds it with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from sibling run_operation by making clear it is a recommender, not an executor.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Start here whenever you are unsure which operation fits') and when to skip it ('skip it when you already know the operation name'). It also names the alternative execution path via run_operation and notes it is free, easing trial use.

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