search-endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Supports fuzzy matching and multi-word queries' and gives an example, which adds behavioral insight. However, it does not mention the return format, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites like authentication. The lack of an output schema amplifies this gap, but the description does cover some core behavior.

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 two concise sentences followed by an example. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example clarifies usage without excess. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description lacks a description of the return structure. It implies results are endpoints but doesn't specify whether it returns full details, IDs, or summaries. This is a notable gap for an agent that needs to interpret results. However, the core search behavior and parameters are covered, making it minimally complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing 'path, operation ID, summary, or description keywords' as matchable fields (the schema only mentions paths, summaries, descriptions) and provides a concrete example with query and limit usage. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Search for API endpoints by path, operation ID, summary, or description keywords.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'operation ID' adds precision beyond the schema. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get-endpoints-by-tag, the scope (keyword search across all endpoints) is evident from the phrasing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives an example of usage but does not mention when to prefer this over get-endpoints-by-tag or list-tags. There are no exclusions or context cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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