agorion_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns endpoints from specific providers, which gives some context about output, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second specifies the providers and search criteria. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and providers well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned endpoints), error cases, or performance considerations. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing example capabilities and mentioning the 6+ providers, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Agorion agent service discovery network'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it finds APIs from 6+ named providers. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'agorion_providers' or 'botindex_discover' by focusing on multi-provider API discovery rather than single-source operations.

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 context by listing search criteria (capability, price, network) and the types of providers it covers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agorion_providers' (which might list providers) or 'botindex_discover' (which appears to be a BotIndex-specific discovery tool). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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