Search API Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it specifies which parts of the spec are searched and that results include cache file paths for later lookup. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value (what is searched, where, and what is returned). No filler or redundancy.

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 sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, search scope, and output type for a simple search tool. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the return description ('matching items with cache file paths') is adequate. Slight gap: it does not explain how 'scope' modifies results, though the schema covers that.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'keyword' and 'scope'. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the API specification by keyword, enumerating the searched fields (paths, summaries, descriptions, operation IDs, schema names) and the return type (cache file paths). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_paths and list_schemas, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 keyword-based lookup across the spec, which differentiates it from listing or retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance of a 5.

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