find_api

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results include exact parameters, schemas, auth, and error responses. Yet it does not mention pagination behavior, matching semantics, or what happens when no endpoints match.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by the useful output facets. It is easy to scan and understand.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming what the tool returns: parameters, schemas, auth, and error responses. The parameter set is modest and fully schema-documented. Missing details include the response shape and default limit behavior, but the definition is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful extra search dimension for the query parameter by explicitly mentioning operation ID, which the schema's query description does not include. Other parameters are already well-covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lookup structured OpenAPI endpoints. It also names the search dimensions (path, operation ID, keyword), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_docs or find_example that target documentation or examples.

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: use this when you need OpenAPI endpoint definitions. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the resource type alone.

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