search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses the return fields and database size, but lacks details about default sort order, pagination, or behavior with an empty query. This is a moderate level of transparency, not a full disclosure.

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 concise sentences: the first states the main function, the second lists the output fields. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague content.

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?

Combined with the thorough schema, the description conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and return structure, making it complete enough for invocation. However, it could be more complete by noting that all parameters are optional and providing guidance on selecting this tool over siblings, e.g., for broad searches vs. retrieving a single tool.

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 fully documents all five parameters with descriptions, including enums for sort and pricing, and a range for limit, so the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter details, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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: searching and filtering software tools from a large database. It specifies the resource (Toolradar's database) and the return fields (names, descriptions, pricing, scores, categories), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories and get_tool.

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 description implies usage for finding tools via search/filter criteria, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a specific tool ID is known (get_tool) or when comparing tools (compare_tools).

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