search_api_schemas

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the fuzzy matching behavior and the return format as a JSON string. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, or failure behavior if the prerequisite is not met, leaving some gaps.

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: it opens with an important prerequisite, then a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. No redundancy or unnecessary details are present.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it lacks explicit information about the tool's non-mutating nature or limitations, so it is 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?

The input schema has no description for the 'query' parameter, but the description compensates fully by stating: 'query (str): Search query to match against schema names and descriptions.' This clearly explains the parameter's meaning and target.

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 function: 'Search for schemas across the OpenAPI specification using fuzzy matching.' This uses a specific verb (search) and resource (schemas), and the presence of the sibling tool search_api_operations indicates differentiation by resource type.

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 includes a clear prerequisite, 'Make Sure you have Called FIRST_STEP_get_api_script_guide first before this tool,' which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as noting that search_api_operations should be used for operations.

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