search_apps

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 mentions pagination but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely but not stated), what happens on invalid input, or any authentication or rate limits. The behavioral context is minimal beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and resource. The second provides usage guidance and return information. No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the core 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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It does not detail pagination mechanics or error handling, but given the schema covers the pagination cursor and limit, it is reasonably complete. Could be improved by noting ordering or result count.

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%, and the description adds value by indicating that the 'query' parameter is used for keyword search and that results include specific fields (name, slug, short description, pricing, rating). This supplements the schema descriptions, though details for 'limit' and 'cursor' are not expanded further.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('HyperStore's AI apps directory by keyword'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'browse_apps' or 'category_apps' by emphasizing keyword-based search. The return fields (name, slug, short description, pricing, rating) are listed, providing specificity.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user gives concrete keywords (e.g. 'image upscaler', 'code copilot').' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'browse_apps' or 'category_apps' for non-keyword exploration.

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