registry_search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful access behavior: calls work via x402 payment (402 responses carry payment instructions) or a free-tier REGISTRY_API_KEY. It does not describe return shape, rate limits, or what a successful search yields beyond the call being a read.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence on payment/auth earns its place by explaining how calls are paid for, though it slightly crowds out usage guidance.

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 parameterless-required search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the reliability dimension being searched, and the payment/auth path. The remaining details (filter syntax, results format) are handled adequately by the 100%-covered schema.

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 all five parameters already carry meaning in the schema (sort values, limit range, category, protocol, min_score semantics). The description's mention of uptime/latency/schema conformance loosely maps to sort/min_score but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("x402/MCP tools") plus the distinguishing dimension ("real reliability data (uptime, latency, schema conformance)"). It is distinguishable from siblings like registry_tool_detail and registry_featured_tools, though it never names or contrasts with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as registry_featured_tools or registry_tool_detail. The mention of x402/REGISTRY_API_KEY is about access, not about when this tool is the right choice, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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