search

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and does not require an API key. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a search tool this is acceptable. The description is transparent about behavioral traits.

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?

Description is three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter roles. Every sentence is earned.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use, and parameter functions. It could mention that results are JSON, but that is common knowledge. Overall adequate for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining roles: 'q is the query', 'categories filters entity types', 'limit caps results'. This provides context beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a broad search across coins, exchanges, ICOs, people, and tags by name or symbol when the entity type is unknown or exploring. It distinguishes from sibling `resolveId` which is for finding coin IDs. The verb 'search' and resource 'CoinPaprika' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when entity type is unknown or exploring, and when not to use: if a coin's canonical id is needed, prefer `resolveId`. Provides clear alternative and context.

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