Search ReAI API endpoints

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

The description discloses the return format (path, parameters, request-body field names) and warns that internal endpoints are off by default. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already indicates a safe read operation. No contradictions.

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 four compact sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core function, gives concrete examples, and outlines the workflow, all in an efficient structure.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, when to use, return format, and next steps. It lacks only minor details like pagination behavior, but the limit parameter is already documented in 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that Norwegian domain terms often appear in descriptions and English in paths/tags, aiding query construction. It also clarifies the interaction between query and tag parameters.

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 searches the full ReAI OpenAPI surface by keyword, tag, or HTTP method, listing concrete example domains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reai_describe_endpoint and reai_request by positioning itself as the initial discovery step.

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?

Explicit guidance says to use this whenever no curated tool covers the need, and provides a follow-up workflow: use reai_describe_endpoint for full schemas, then call via reai_request. This clearly differentiates from curated tools and alternatives.

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