Get API details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses authentication details, base URL, operations, free plan vs trial, rate limits, data policy, last-checked dates, link checks, and many separate signals with their fetch dates. It also states that values carry the vendor page and check date, and advises when to confirm pricing beyond the free quota.

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 content is front-loaded with 'Full entry for one service' and is information-dense, but it is delivered as two enormous run-on sentences. The heavy enumeration is useful given the lack of an output schema, but the structure is unwieldy and could be reorganized for faster parsing.

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 definition is complete for a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations. It thoroughly describes the returned fields, data freshness, and usage caveats, and the schema covers the sole input parameter.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single id parameter is documented as coming from search_apis. The description does not add syntax, format, or usage detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 it returns a full entry for one service and enumerates the contents, so the verb and resource are unambiguous. However, it never explicitly names the sibling tools or states that search_apis is the way to obtain the id, leaving sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: when the user names a service, before batch jobs/messages/payments or other third-party actions, and for a cheap first call. It also warns that a known vendor is not a checked vendor. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it in the description itself.

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