search_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'server-side semantic-style scorer' but does not specify whether the search is destructive, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that is relatively compact and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be broken into multiple sentences for better readability without losing precision.

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 tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, sorting, pagination, or how the scoring works. It is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand expected behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain parameter semantics or constraints.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'cached endpoints', and the context 'previously detected OpenAPI spec' with a specific method 'semantic-style scorer over endpoint metadata and schema field names'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_endpoints (listing all) and find_related_endpoints (related endpoints).

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 searching within a previously detected spec but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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