Search AwardWallet API operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (id, read/write flag, doc link, input JSON Schema) and hints at truncation behavior via 'limit = maximum matches with full schemas' and the brief-listing fallback for empty queries.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the enumeration of covered APIs and return fields. The list of six API names and the doc URL are somewhat bulky but carry genuine routing information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the empty-query fallback, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with full schema coverage for inputs, nothing essential is missing for a search tool of this complexity.

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 echoes the meaning of results and mentions the empty-query case, but adds little syntax or semantics for the four parameters beyond what the schema (including the query examples and enum descriptions) already provides.

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 (searches) and resource (the raw AwardWallet API operations this server can call), and scopes it to the six named upstream APIs. It is clearly a discovery/meta tool, cleanly distinguishable from the call_api_* siblings that execute operations.

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 gives clear usage context: query with intent phrasing, and 'an empty query lists every available operation briefly', which tells the agent how to enumerate. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over call_api_read_operation or call_api_write_operation (i.e., 'use this first to find the operation to call').

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