vro_api_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the spec size (300+ operations), the return type (operationIds), and the special empty-query mode. It does not mention result limits/caps or ranking behavior, which matters for a search tool.

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 tightly-packed sentences: purpose, outputs/next-step, and a discovery tip. Front-loaded and no filler, though the example list is slightly dense in one sentence.

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, but the description states what comes back (operationIds) and how to use them, which is what matters for a discovery tool. Missing: result-count behavior and how tag/method filters interact.

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 coverage is 60%, so the description must partially compensate. It explains the empty-query/listTags idiom and names concrete query shapes ('workflow execution logs', '/packages'), going beyond the schema for the two parameters an agent most needs to understand. It does not clarify tag/method/limit semantics.

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 (Orchestrator REST API spec) with concrete example queries, and explicitly names the sibling tools (vro_api_describe / vro_api_call) that consume its output. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling in the list.

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?

Clearly situates this as the discovery step before vro_api_describe/vro_api_call, and gives the query='' + listTags=true idiom for browsing API areas. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., when to prefer the higher-level workflow tools like vro_find_workflows).

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