search_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Exact and prefix matches rank first' and the explicit scoping to a single retail patch. This goes beyond the minimal burden set by the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The core purpose and ranking behavior are clear, but with no output schema, the description does not specify the structure of search results (e.g., whether it returns matches with metadata, default pagination, or how version is interpreted if omitted). This leaves some ambiguity for full invocation, though the essential information for tool selection is present.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description enriches the query parameter by explaining match ordering (exact/prefix rank first) and clarifies the version parameter's role as a single-patch scope, adding meaning not present in the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('API names and official documentation text'), and a scope ('within one retail patch'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_api by focusing on documentation text search and mentioning exact/prefix ranking.

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 phrase 'within one retail patch' implies a scoping constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as compare_api, diff_versions, or lookup_api. No direct when/when-not guidance is given, only an implied usage context.

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