api_search

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the matching algorithm (every word matched against function paths AND parameter names) and the shape of the result (full signatures). It does not mention result ordering, truncation behavior, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then one sentence on matching semantics, then examples. Short and mostly waste-free, though the examples could be folded into the same sentence without losing clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description adds useful matching detail. But with 0% schema coverage and no explanation of 'limit', plus no differentiation from the api_describe/api_enum siblings, the definition is not fully complete for a search tool in a crowded namespace.

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 must compensate. It partially does for 'query' by explaining the matching semantics and giving examples, but 'limit' (default 30) is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 installed CSiBridge API for functions by name, with concrete example queries. An agent can tell this is a function-lookup tool, but the description never contrasts it with the sibling api_describe or api_enum, which likely overlap.

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 two example queries ('frame distributed load', 'BridgeModeler span') imply how to phrase a search, and the all-words-must-match rule implies expected precision. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to api_describe/api_enum as follow-up or alternative tools.

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