search_api_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fuzzy matching behavior, the restriction to active operations, and the return format (JSON string). It does not mention error handling or no-result behavior, but covers the core behavioral traits for a search tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a prominent prerequisite warning, a clear purpose sentence, a note about active operations, and an Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: prerequisite, search scope, active-operation filter, and return format. It could mention how to interpret the returned JSON, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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 input schema only lists 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that the query matches operation summaries, descriptions, tags, and operation IDs, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema itself.

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 'Search for operations across the OpenAPI specification using fuzzy matching,' combining a specific verb (search), resource (operations), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_api_schemas and load_api_operation_by_operationId by focusing on cross-specification search rather than schema lookup or direct loading.

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 explicitly requires calling FIRST_STEP_get_api_script_guide first, giving a clear usage prerequisite. It also notes the restriction to active (non-deprecated) operations, which sets an important boundary. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative search/load tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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