Find Tools

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is in operational behavior: 'Discovery is free', 'Discovery does not execute providers', and that contracts must be run through firecrawl_scrape. Those are genuinely useful non-obvious facts. It doesn't spell out pagination semantics or result-size limits beyond a passing 'nextTool' mention, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the prose is dense with actionable content. There is mild redundancy around firecrawl_search (mentioned as both the preferred default and the alternative for web results), and the middle 'Alexandria covers...' enumeration is long, but every sentence largely earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, the discovery-vs-execution distinction, free-cost note, and the nextTool handoff. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result without opening other tools.

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 73%, so much is already documented, but the description adds real meaning: 'use query for semantic discovery or urls to find providers', and the implicit level progression ('With no arguments, browse categories, then providers and tools'). limit, offset, and includeCosts are not elaborated in the description, leaving minor gaps for a schema that already names them.

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?

States precise verbs (browse providers/workflows, read a contract) on a specific resource ('Alexandria data providers'), and immediately operationalizes the jargon with a domain list (companies, people, jobs, finance, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling firecrawl_search, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the default alternative explicitly ('Prefer normal firecrawl_search for a data task') and gives three concrete when-to-use conditions: contract not returned in full, browse a category when search found nothing, before scraping the same fields across pages. It closes with an explicit exclusion ('Use firecrawl_search when you also need web results'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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