asc_search_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by presenting this as a search/find operation. It adds useful context beyond the annotations: API versions, operation counts, and the warning that some resources are not where the URL pattern implies. No side effects are claimed, so there is no contradiction.

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 sentences and every clause earns its place: scope, API versions, search dimensions, output use, and a routing heuristic. Key information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 covers the essential return contract ('returns operationIds for asc_call and asc_write'), the targeted APIs, and valid search dimensions. It is slightly light on how filters combine and what response metadata accompanies the operationIds, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, so the description partially carries the burden for undocumented parameters. 'Search by keyword, method, tag or risk tier' maps query, method, tag, and risk to their intended roles, and api/limit have schema descriptions with defaults. However, the risk tier values are not explained, and the combination semantics of multiple filters are left implicit, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 opens with an unambiguous verb and resource: 'Find operations across the App Store Connect API... and the App Store Server API / StoreKit 2.' It also states the search dimensions and the concrete output: 'returns operationIds for asc_call and asc_write.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like asc_call and asc_describe_endpoint.

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 instruction 'Start here rather than guessing a path' establishes when this tool should be used before calling or writing operations, and naming asc_call and asc_write as consumers of the returned operationIds gives the agent a natural next step. It does not explicitly enumerate when to skip this tool and go directly to a sibling, so it stops short of a full 5.

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