l402_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the search sources but does not clarify whether the operation requires authentication, whether it has side effects, what the output looks like, or any rate limits. For a read-only search tool, the lack of such context is a significant gap.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides source-specific detail. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain result format, filter options, and any limitations. It omits details about the 'query', 'category', and 'status' parameters, and does not describe what a successful result looks like. This leaves the tool under-specified for effective invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It indirectly explains the 'source' parameter by mapping it to l402.directory and 402index.io, but it provides no meaningful guidance for 'query', 'status', or 'category'. The description adds only minimal value beyond the schema's enum definitions.

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 ('Search') and resource ('L402 service directories'), and explains the purpose: finding paid APIs accessible with Lightning payments. It also differentiates the tool by naming specific sources (l402.directory and 402index.io), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like l402_discover.

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 provides guidance on choosing between the two 'source' options (default vs. alternative with coverage differences), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other L402-related tools or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly framed with alternatives.

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