Search AI Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context (the corpus size of 2,901+ verified tools, and that results carry GateOnAI scores and URLs), but does not go beyond that to cover result caps, ranking behavior, or freshness.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the headline capability (search 2,901+ tools) is front-loaded and the return payload is summarized second. Slightly compressed to the point of omitting routing guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile; the schema fully documents all six parameters. What remains missing is routing relative to the many sibling search/analysis tools, which is the only meaningful gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including enum values and examples. The description restates the filter dimensions (name, use case, category, pricing, GDPR) without adding syntax, defaulting, or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (GateOnAI's database of 2,901+ verified AI tools) and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, use case, category, pricing, GDPR). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also retrieve tools (get_tool_details, compare_ai_tools, find_similar_by_philosophy), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Find tools by name, use case, category, pricing model, or GDPR compliance status,' which tells the agent what inputs are natural. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_eu_gdpr_tools or get_tool_details for a single known tool.

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