search_subgraphs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the registry size (15,500+ subgraphs), ranking method (by reliability score), return format (query URLs), and post-search workflow (how to actually query data with API key). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes core functionality, followed by filter options, return format, and post-usage instructions. Every sentence adds value, though the long list of example values in the first sentence could be slightly streamlined.

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?

Given 7 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context: it explains what the tool does, how results are ranked, what's returned (query URLs), and crucial next steps for data querying. The main gap is lack of output format details, but the description compensates well with operational guidance.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example values for filters (e.g., 'defi, nfts, dao' for domain) and clarifying that 'query' is 'free-text keyword' search. This meets the baseline 3 when schema does heavy lifting.

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: 'Search and filter the classified subgraph registry (15,500+ subgraphs)' with specific verbs ('search', 'filter') and resource ('subgraph registry'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search/filtering capabilities rather than detail retrieval (get_subgraph_detail), statistics (list_registry_stats), or recommendations (recommend_subgraph).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To query data: POST GraphQL to https://gateway.thegraph.com/api/[api-key]/subgraphs/id/[subgraph-id]' indicates this tool is for discovery/filtering, while actual data querying requires a different API call. It also implicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on search/filtering rather than other operations.

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