Search Plaid API endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait: deprecated endpoints are hidden unless include_deprecated is set. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as return format, ranking, or pagination. The description adds some value but remains minimal; for a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what it searches and the deprecated behavior, but does not describe the output format or any limitations (e.g., how results are returned, whether pagination is handled). An agent might need to infer the output, which could be risky. It is acceptable for a simple search tool but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has an example description). The tool description does not explicitly explain 'limit' or 'include_deprecated', though it indirectly references the latter via 'deprecated endpoints are hidden unless asked for'. It adds no semantics for 'limit' (e.g., default, range, purpose). Given low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent with incomplete parameter understanding.

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 action (keyword search) and the resource (every endpoint in the official Plaid OpenAPI spec), including the fields searched (path, summary, description). It distinguishes itself from siblings like plaid_docs_search or plaid_institutions_search by explicitly targeting the OpenAPI spec, and notes deprecated endpoints are hidden by default. This is a specific verb+resource with scope.

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 provides clear context: this is for searching endpoints by keyword across the OpenAPI spec. It implies the use case of finding endpoints, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like plaid_api_describe or plaid_docs_search, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since the context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent, it fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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