Find endpoints

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output format ('One line per endpoint, no schemas'), result ordering ('Admin endpoints come last'), and a reliability caveat ('Summaries can be wrong — check the path and method'). These go beyond the annotation and help the agent set expectations.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences. The search scope is front-loaded, followed by output format, ordering, and a warning. No redundant wording; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: what is searched, result shape, ordering, and data reliability. It does not explain parameter semantics, but the schema itself documents several of them (query, has_body, include_admin) and the rest are fairly self-explanatory (method enum, limit bounds). Overall, an agent can call the tool correctly with this information.

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?

The description does not add meaning to the tool's parameters (group, limit, query, method, etc.); it only lists the fields being searched, which relates to the query parameter but not to the other filters. Schema coverage is 67% for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description neither compensates for uncovered parameters nor conflicts with 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?

The description explicitly states it searches across method, path, operationId, summary, tags and parameter names, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like api_endpoint (which likely retrieves a single endpoint) and api_spec_info by clarifying its search nature and result format ('One line per endpoint').

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 implied rather than stated: the description conveys that this tool finds endpoints through keyword search and warns to verify results, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. The statement 'no schemas' hints that schema retrieval belongs elsewhere, but this is not explicit.

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