search_apis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses result ordering ("ranked matches"), the returned fields (method, path, read-only flag), and bilingual query support — all information not present in the annotations or in any output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs in the return shape and keyword scope without a wasted clause.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is searched, how it is matched, and what the results contain. The only gap is result-set sizing (the `limit` parameter and default behavior), which an agent would have to read from the schema.

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 only 50%: `query` is documented with concrete examples in the schema and reinforced by the description's "Chinese/English keywords" note, but `limit` (default 20, max 50) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds marginal meaning for the required parameter but does nothing to compensate for the undocumented one.

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 APIs") plus the query mode (Chinese/English keywords) and what comes back (method, path, read-only flag). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_apis by being keyword-driven, but never names or contrasts with the sibling tools that overlap most (query_api, list_apis).

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 keyword-search framing implies when to use it rather than browsing everything, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when query_api or list_apis would be better. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names alone.

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