search_adbutler_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the observable behavior: searches by keyword, returns matching endpoints with HTTP method, path, and brief summary. It also implies a read-only discovery operation via 'find' and 'returns', and sets expectations for the follow-up calls. It does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, but the language strongly indicates a lookup-only tool.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return value, usage context with examples, and a clear workflow chain. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant words and the key action front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description comprehensively covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what types of queries to issue, and how to proceed with results via sibling tools. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and the workflow is explicitly chained, leaving no major gaps in understanding.

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 100%, covering both query and limit with descriptions. The description adds value by giving concrete field-concept examples ('priority', 'pacing', 'frequency cap', 'metadata', 'tracking pixel') that clarify what types of keywords are appropriate for the query parameter. Limit is self-explanatory from 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 opens with 'Find AdButler API endpoints by keyword,' a specific verb + resource + modifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'when no specific tool matches what you need' and clarifies it returns endpoint metadata (HTTP method, path, summary), separating it from resource-specific tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'when no specific tool matches what you need' and when the query is about a *field* rather than a resource, with concrete examples like 'priority' and 'pacing'. It also provides the full follow-up workflow: 'Then call describe_adbutler_api on the most promising hit, then call_adbutler_api to invoke it.' This is clear guidance on alternatives and sequencing.

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