searchEndpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details: the search covers paths, descriptions, and tags, and results are 'triés par pertinence' (sorted by relevance). However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, result limits, or any error behavior. For a search tool this is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.

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 long, front-loaded with the action ('Recherche des endpoints'), and each sentence carries meaningful information: what is searched and how results are ordered. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential elements: purpose, search scope, and output behavior (sorted by relevance). It does not explain the return format or limits, but for a search tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete. Slightly better than a bare minimum because it articulates the relevance ordering.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, which provides the baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning by stating the query is matched against paths, descriptions, and tags, clarifying how the parameter is used beyond the simple 'terme de recherche' (search term) in 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource combination ('Recherche des endpoints' = search endpoints), and specifies the search scope ('par mot-clé dans les chemins, descriptions, tags' = keyword in paths, descriptions, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listEndpoints (list all) or getEndpointsByTag (filter by tag), as it is a keyword-based search across multiple fields.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to find endpoints by keyword, with the search fields explicitly listed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use listEndpoints to list all endpoints'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, placing it a notch below a perfect 5.

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