search_l402_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only search and states the result concept, but it does not clarify matching behavior (exact/fuzzy), result limits, or whether authentication is needed. This is acceptable for a simple search but leaves some behavior implicit.

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 sentence delivers all key information: resource, domain, query behavior, and use case. No filler, and the essential search semantics appear before the illustrative category list.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context, but remains vague about the shape of returned services (full objects vs summaries) and any pagination or limits. The lack of result details is a notable gap given no output schema.

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?

The input schema already documents the single query parameter with 100% coverage, so the description needs to add little. It reinforces that the query is a search string and gives example values, which matches but does not go beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a concrete resource ('L402/x402 service directory') and a clear outcome ('Returns services matching a query string'). This is readily distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_l402_services_by_category and get_l402_service.

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?

It gives a clear scenario for when this tool is appropriate: finding Lightning-gated or stablecoin-gated APIs by query across multiple categories. It does not explicitly contrast with list_l402_services_by_category or get_l402_service, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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