search_api_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search (no mention of side effects), but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a search tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 short sentences, no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return format is covered. However, given the context of low schema coverage and sibling tools, the description could be more complete by mentioning the scope of the search (e.g., all schemas), case sensitivity, or partial matching behavior. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has one string parameter 'keyword' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the context that the keyword is used to search for field names and types, but does not provide examples, format expectations, or case sensitivity. Given the simplicity of the parameter, the added meaning is marginal but acceptable.

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 PensionPro API data models by keyword' and the purpose 'discover field names and types'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implies a search across schemas, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api_schema (which retrieves a single schema) and search_api_paths (which searches paths).

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 gives one explicit use case ('Use this to discover field names and types'), but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare to alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes, so additional guidance would help avoid mis-selection.

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