find_operation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the return payload (full input schema of each match) and reassures that most of the API is reachable this way, but says nothing about whether the search has side effects, how many matches come back, ordering, or token cost of returning many schemas.

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 short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the operation and its output, the second defines the trigger. The usage condition is front-loaded immediately after the purpose with no filler.

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?

As a discovery meta-tool in a family that includes call_operation, the critical missing piece is the bridge: the description never explains that matches are then executed with call_operation, nor what identifying field the result carries. The mechanics of the search itself and its return shape are adequately covered.

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?

The single query parameter is fully documented in the schema, including worked examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by what it does" reinforces intent-based rather than name-based matching, but adds no new constraint, format, or search-syntax detail beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource: search every API operation by what it does and return each match's full input schema. That is far more precise than the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling call_operation, which is almost certainly the follow-on step, leaving a small gap in differentiation.

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?

"Use this when no tool above covers what you need" gives a clear activation condition and implicitly rules out cases where a concrete sibling already applies. It does not go further to say what to do with the results (e.g. invoke the discovered operation via call_operation), so the guidance stops one step short of the full workflow.

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