search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the return shape ('paths, methods, parameters, and server URLs') and the intended workflow, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool this is adequate but not complete, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences are used efficiently: purpose first, return format second, and workflow guidance third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted phrasing.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly describing the return fields. It also names the sibling tool and the intended ordering with execute(). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly in this workflow.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the query examples and limit constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (Alchemy's API endpoints), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from its sibling by instructing the agent to use it before execute(). An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from execute without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before execute() to discover the right endpoint.' This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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