search_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds useful context: it's free (no wallet), searches across specific fields (path, operation id, description). But it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, disclose any side effects, or describe the return format. This is acceptable for a search tool but lacks some behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the most important info (free, search scope). No wasted words, every sentence earns its place. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, good schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what it searches, when to use it, and cost. Missing return format details, but that's not critical for a search tool. The sibling context is available.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples ('chess', 'timezone', 'background removal') and clarifying what the query searches across (path, operation id, description), which enriches the meaning of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema.

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 tool performs a keyword search across every route's path, operation id, and description, with concrete examples. It also differentiates from siblings by indicating it's for when you don't know the exact route name or category.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you don't know the exact route name or category,' giving a clear context. It also notes 'FREE — no wallet needed,' a cost-related guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a perfect 5.

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