search_apis

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns free-plan enrollment links and requires no API key for discovery. It does not cover rate limits or result field details, but that is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 the core action and followed by return and auth context. There is no filler and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return links, and no-key discovery. However, with 0% parameter description coverage, it should do more to explain query behavior, limit semantics, and the result shape beyond 'enrollment links'.

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 must carry parameter meaning, but it does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. It mentions category among other facets, but source, country, and task do not map clearly to the actual schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('supported live-data APIs') and adds useful facets such as source, country, category, and task. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search_endpoints by talking about APIs rather than endpoints; there is no explicit routing statement.

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?

It gives useful context that discovery does not require an API key, implying this is an entry-point lookup tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_endpoints, describe_endpoint, or call_endpoint, nor does it name any exclusion conditions.

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