Keyword search over the x402 catalog

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 usefully discloses that matching is literal rather than semantic, but says nothing about result ordering (relevance vs. catalog order), pagination behavior, or that this is a read-only, non-mutating lookup.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the search front-loaded before the sibling routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter, read-only search with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and alternative routing adequately. With no output schema and no annotations, it could say more about ordering and result shape, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 documents query, limit and offset in detail. The description's field list and 'literal, not by meaning' note largely restate what the query parameter description already says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 mechanism (substring search) and the exact fields searched (host, URL, service name), which makes it immediately distinguishable from x402_semantic_search. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to x402_semantic_search when meaning-based matching is wanted, which implicitly defines the when-not case. It stops short of stating any preconditions or noting that this is the cheaper/faster option for known domains or paths.

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