Search third-party APIs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the AND query logic and the expected workflow. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention pagination or dynamic output nature, but overall adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 brief paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the rest adds essential context without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers query behavior and workflow but omits mention of pagination (page/page_size) and the open-world hint. These are minor gaps for a 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's behavior (use short, specific terms, AND logic) but does not elaborate on 'page' or 'page_size'. This is adequate for the key parameter but incomplete for pagination controls.

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 the tool searches for third-party APIs (dataservices) by keywords, distinguishes them from static datasets, and provides a specific usage tip about AND logic. This makes the purpose distinct from sibling search tools like search_datasets and search_organizations.

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 advises using short, specific queries due to AND logic and outlines a typical workflow (search_dataservices → get_dataservice_info → ...). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the distinction from datasets and the workflow provide clear context. Minor omission of explicit alternatives.

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