api_indexer_search_for_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'nextToken' parameter, or what format results are returned in. The description adds no meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words. While it may be too brief for completeness, every word earns its place by conveying the core action (search), target (applications), and scope (various criteria). There's no wasted verbiage.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'applications' are in this Algorand context, what the search actually returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'various criteria' which loosely references the parameters but adds no specific meaning, syntax examples, 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 'Search for applications with various criteria' states the basic purpose (searching applications) but is vague about what 'applications' means in this context (Algorand smart contracts vs. other types). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like 'api_indexer_search_for_accounts' or 'api_indexer_search_for_assets' beyond the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for searching different resources (accounts, assets, transactions) and for looking up applications directly, but the description doesn't help the agent choose between them. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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