discover_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It states the tool 'returns ranked matches with pricing and setup data when available', which gives a basic understanding but doesn't elaborate on other traits (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits).

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 with an example, no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes key usage guidance efficiently.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return includes 'ranked matches with pricing and setup data when available'. Parameters are well-documented in schema, and sibling tools (get_api_details, get_api_docs) cover deeper needs, making this description sufficient for a discovery tool.

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 free-text description adds examples and mentions ranking, but does not significantly enhance the schema's own parameter descriptions. It provides marginal added value.

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 'Search for APIs by what you need' which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'recommend' tool by noting that 'for an opinionated pick with working code, use the recommend tool instead', providing effective distinction.

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 description explicitly advises when not to use this tool ('For an opinionated pick... use recommend instead') and provides examples of appropriate queries ('send transactional emails', 'process payments'). This gives clear guidance on usage context.

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