search_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a read-oriented search/filter operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, result shape, or the fact that all parameters are optional. These gaps are moderate because the core behavior of a search tool is inferable, not misleading.

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 with every phrase carrying signal: 'Structured API search' establishes the tool, and the filter list gives immediate practical guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a simple search endpoint, especially with a fully documented schema and all-optional parameters. However, without an output schema, a note about the result format or return structure would improve completeness; the current text leaves that entirely to inference.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists filter names in prose but adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, combinations, defaults, or partial-match behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the verb 'search' with a clear resource ('API') and enumerates the filter dimensions (class name, method name, return type, category, mod loader), making its purpose recognizable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but 'Structured API search' separates it from document- and event-level searches in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list: if an agent needs to find API entries by class, method, return type, category, or loader, this tool is the fit. However, it doesn't state when to prefer it over search_docs, search_events, or browse_api_category, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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