Find API endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the real value of disclosing matching semantics (conjunctive 'every word') and the empty-query listing behavior. It stops short of noting result limits or pagination, which is the only remaining behavioral gap, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be explained.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core action and matching scope front-loaded before the optional-parameter note and the workflow pointer. The parenthetical examples are useful rather than filler, though they add a little length that could be trimmed.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is searched, how matching works, what happens with no query, and which tools to call next. No material gap remains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it defines the matching fields, the AND-across-words rule, the option to omit the parameter for an unfiltered listing, and gives three illustrative values ('redis', 'mail autoreply', 'cloud resize'). This adds meaning well beyond the bare `type: string` in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the ZoneID API v2 reference for endpoints') and narrows the search scope to path, tag and summary. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools describe_endpoint and zone_api_request, which are named as separate steps rather than competitors.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (free-text lookup by keyword), an edge case with its behavior ('Omit query to list all endpoints'), and a workflow that routes the agent onward to describe_endpoint for details and zone_api_request to call. Nothing about invocation choice is left to inference.

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