search_miniapps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the returned fields (app name, description, rank, weekly users, rating, review count) and adds a unique trust statement about World ID verification. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or rate limits, though the read-only nature of 'search' is clear.

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 primary action and search criteria, and includes valuable output field details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is critical for agent expectations. The 6-parameter tool is well-covered by the schema, and the description adds the verification context. It lacks minor details like default sort order or error behavior, but these are not essential for a read-only search 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the roles of query, category, and sort but adds no new details beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain limit, offset, or locale, but those are adequately documented 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource 'World MiniApps' along with the search dimensions (keyword, category, sort). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_app_details and get_trending_apps by focusing on general search/filter rather than specifics or trending lists.

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 usage for discovering apps via search and filtering, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative tool guidance, so the usage context is inferred from the action rather than explicitly stated.

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