Search Endpoints

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: it returns at most ten matches, ranking by relevance, uses fuzzy matching with a floor (no results if nothing resembles the query), and rejects unknown filter values. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds useful operational context without contradicting them.

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 tight and well-organized: purpose statement, output format, matching behavior, routing to get_endpoint, and filter error handling. Each sentence earns its place, and key info is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 an output schema, the description covers the result shape, relevance cap, fuzzy matching floor, and the path to get_endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from list_endpoints or explain error scenarios beyond unknown filters, but given the output schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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%, with each parameter (query, app, method) having its own description. The tool description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema—mostly restating that app and method act as filters. It does add the note that unknown filter values are rejected, but this is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find endpoints by name, path fragment, method or description.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_endpoints by focusing on search and relevance ranking, and it explicitly routes to get_endpoint for full schema details.

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 implicitly guides usage by saying 'Pass a result's slug to get_endpoint for the full schema,' indicating when to use get_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_endpoints over list_endpoints or other siblings, leaving the selection partially to inference.

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