etabs_search_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow context that results are meant to be drilled into via describe/call, but does not mention result limits (default 25, max 200) or how matches are ranked.

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?

Two tight sentences: the search scope is front-loaded, then the fallback condition and the follow-up tool chain. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly covers the tool's role in the broader API-escape-hatch workflow. The one omission is handling large result sets / the limit default, which an agent calling it for a broad query would benefit from knowing.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter guidance at all. The query semantics ('words to match against method names, interface paths and parameter names') come entirely from the schema, and the limit parameter is undocumented anywhere, so a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search all ~1,300 ETABS API methods') with concrete scale, and positions itself as the raw-API fallback that the curated tools do not cover. An agent can distinguish it from etabs_describe_api and etabs_call_api without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition ('when no curated tool covers the task') and names the two downstream siblings in order (etabs_describe_api for parameters, etabs_call_api to run). This is a complete when/when-not plus workflow chain.

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