search_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions a 'server-side semantic-style scorer', hinting at ranking but not deterministic filtering. It omits details like sorting, pagination, or any side effects (likely none). Lacks safety/read-only indication.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the verb 'Search' for quick agent comprehension.

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 the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains input but not output format or behavior on empty results. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer integration patterns.

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, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. The phrase 'over endpoint metadata and schema field names' confirms the query scope but doesn't clarify parameter relationships or format requirements.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Search'), resource ('cached endpoints'), and context ('for a previously detected OpenAPI spec'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_endpoints (which lists all without scoring) and detect_openapi (which creates the cache).

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?

While the description implies use after detect_openapi, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_endpoints or find_related_endpoints. No 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites beyond the implicit cached spec.

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