search_apis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: fuzzy search and multiple filter conditions. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return structure looks like, or whether there are pagination or performance characteristics.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 fully described in the schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details about the return format (though no output schema exists), and it does not mention how search results are ordered or what fields are included.

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 little beyond the schema: 'fuzzy search' hints at query matching semantics, but the filter parameters (tag, method, swaggerName) are already well-documented in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '搜索 API endpoints' (search API endpoints). It distinguishes from sibling search_schemas by targeting endpoints rather than schemas, and adds specific capabilities (fuzzy search, multiple filter conditions).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_schemas or get_api_info. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or indications of preferred use cases beyond the basic search purpose.

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