l402-search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it describes the source (Nostr), the returned data (URLs, pricing, capabilities), and the overall purpose. There is no contradiction, and the description enriches the safety profile by clarifying the read-only nature and what to expect from results.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage condition. It is tightly written with no fluff, and each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage context and the next step. Excellent structure and economy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, openWorld), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not detail the relay mechanism or failure modes, but those are less critical for invocation. The combination of schema and description is sufficient for correct use, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it echoes the search intent but does not explain individual parameters or their nuances. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description's contribution is minimal, so this score is justified.

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's function: 'Search for paid APIs and services' with specific details about discovering services on Nostr and returning URLs, pricing, and capabilities. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context differentiates it from the fetch tool by emphasizing the search/discovery role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use this when the user wants something that might be available as a paid service'. It also mentions a follow-up action ('Then use l402-fetch with the URL'), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like l402-discover. Since it provides clear context without full differentiation, a 4 is appropriate.

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