opn_api_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears full disclosure burden; it identifies the matched fields but never states that the operation is read-only or how results are shaped/ranked. Critically, it omits that results are filtered to installed packages by default, which materially changes what the agent sees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and illustrative queries last; nothing is wasted. Slightly dense with parenthetical examples but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a three-parameter search tool with zero schema documentation the description should still cover the installed-only default and limit behavior. As written, an agent cannot predict that uninstalled-package endpoints are excluded by default.

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% across three parameters. The description compensates well for 'query' by explaining which fields are matched and giving example phrasings, but 'limit' and especially 'installed_only' (default true, which silently narrows results) receive no explanation 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Search OPNsense API endpoints') and clarifies the search surface: path, description, or model. The quoted example queries ('alias', 'kea reservation', 'unbound host override') make the intent concrete, though it never names the sibling opn_api_describe or opn_api to delimit itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing and examples suggest this is a discovery step before calling opn_api or opn_api_describe, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent must infer the workflow from the sibling tool names.

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