apidog_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 the search scope, that results are ranked by relevance, and that a keyword rather than an exact path is needed. Missing result format and pagination details, but this is a read-oriented search and the disclosed behavior is relevant.

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 front-load the operation before adding a practical example. Every sentence earns its place and no filler remains.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema descriptions, the main missing piece is output shape/pagination, but no output schema exists to carry that. The description gives enough context for an agent to decide to call it and pass a query.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description partially restates the query parameter's scope but adds no format, syntax, or method-filter semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search endpoints') and lists the exact searchable fields (path, summary, description, tags, folder). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from a plain list/get by framing it as fuzzy location when the exact path is unknown.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when you are not sure of the exact path') with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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