search_capabilities

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring safety, the description adds real value beyond the annotations: no API key required for public search, the result set is deliberately short, and no LLM is invoked (a non-obvious side-effect statement). It stops short of describing result ordering or limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what can be found and followed by auth, return size, and the next-step tool. The category enumeration is slightly listy but earns its place by telling the agent what is discoverable.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly mentions the return is a short list and points to get_capability for depth, which is helpful. However, for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no documented pagination behavior, the definition is not quite complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the two parameters. The meaning of 'query' (free-text match? category filter?) and 'page' (pagination semantics, max 100000) is left entirely to inference from the schema's names and constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource (tools/capabilities) and enumerates the domain categories it covers, so an agent knows this is a discovery/search tool. It differentiates itself from get_capability but never contrasts with invoke_capability, leaving one sibling relationship implicit.

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 routes the agent: search here for a short list, then use get_capability for schemas and examples, and notes that public search needs no key. It gives a clear positive usage path but no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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