asc__search_tools

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

With readOnlyHint=true already denoting a safe read, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it searches domains not loaded and returns specific fields (tool names, domain, endpoint). It also highlights the English-only matching behavior, going beyond the annotation.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver purpose, return information, and a critical usage constraint. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and remains free of redundant details.

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 description fully covers the tool's purpose, output, and language behavior. Given the simple schema and the nature of a search/discovery tool, no additional behavioral details are necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the English-only requirement for the query and mentions the search scope, but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation for App Store Connect operations by keyword, including unloaded domains. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by serving as a discovery mechanism, and specifies the return value (tool names, domain, 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to find the right operation by keyword, especially across domains not currently loaded. It provides explicit guidance on using English keywords and translating goals, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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